Slashdot Mirror


A Stealthy Harvard Startup Wants To Reverse Aging in Dogs, and Humans Could Be Next (technologyreview.com)

The idea is simple, if you ask biologist George Church. He wants to live to 130 in the body of a 22-year-old. From a report: The world's most influential synthetic biologist is behind a new company that plans to rejuvenate dogs using gene therapy. If it works, he plans to try the same approach in people, and he might be one of the first volunteers. The stealth startup Rejuvenate Bio, cofounded by George Church of Harvard Medical School, thinks dogs aren't just man's best friend but also the best way to bring age-defeating treatments to market. The company, which has carried out preliminary tests on beagles, claims it will make animals "younger" by adding new DNA instructions to their bodies.

Its age-reversal plans build on tantalizing clues seen in simple organisms like worms and flies. Tweaking their genes can increase their life spans by double or better. Other research has shown that giving old mice blood transfusions from young ones can restore some biomarkers to youthful levels. "We have already done a bunch of trials in mice and we are doing some in dogs, and then we'll move on to humans," Church told the podcaster Rob Reid earlier this year. The company's efforts to keep its activities out of the press make it unclear how many dogs it has treated so far. In a document provided by a West Coast veterinarian, dated last June, Rejuvenate said its gene therapy had been tested on four beagles with Tufts Veterinary School in Boston. It is unclear whether wider tests are under way.

However, from public documents, a patent application filed by Harvard, interviews with investors and dog breeders, and public comments made by the founders, MIT Technology Review assembled a portrait of a life-extension startup pursuing a longevity long shot through the $72-billion-a-year US pet industry. "Dogs are a market in and of themselves," Church said during an event in Boston last week. "It's not just a big organism close to humans. It's something people will pay for, and the FDA process is much faster. We'll do dog trials, and that'll be a product, and that'll pay for scaling up in human trials."

170 comments

  1. Don't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this guy watch movies? We are gonna have a bunch of Cujo's running around.

    1. Re:Don't do it by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or vampires. This is exactly how vampires get started.

    2. Re:Don't do it by White+Yeti · · Score: 1

      Yup. When the company goes bust or stops supporting the product, you'll start hearing about upset users "pirating" youthful blood.

    3. Re:Don't do it by lazarus · · Score: 1

      Hey!

      --
      I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    4. Re:Don't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to bed, you!

    5. Re:Don't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worse. They're reversing aging. You'll get younger and younger and eventually turn into a sperm.

    6. Re:Don't do it by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or vampires. This is exactly how vampires get started.

      I don't mind being a vampire, as long as I'm a Count Dracula erudite and classy vampire rather than one of those sissy whiny emo twilight vampires.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Don't do it by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Doesn't this guy watch movies? We are gonna have a bunch of Cujo's running around.

      Plus it will ruin movies. Kids will watch "Old Yeller" and won't understand what "old" means.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Don't do it by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Vampire dogs ??

  2. Rise of the Planet of the Dogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't something like this the plot for that movie Planet of the Apes movie series?

  3. A world full of stupid people.... by MikeDataLink · · Score: 4, Funny

    That live forever. Exactly what we need.

    --
    Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    1. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

      They've already doing preliminary testing on this. They're trying to get rid of some of the side effects, but haven't been able to figure out yet why it turns your skin orange or shrinks your hands.

    2. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by ranton · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A world full of stupid people that live forever. Exactly what we need.

      It doesn't have to be cheap enough that everyone can live forever. Perhaps it becomes a prime motivator to work once basic income rolls around.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    3. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have heard it said that the world makes progress simply because the people holding outdated ideas die off. If the rich and powerful but regressive old folks die off, perhaps all progress will stop.

      It's not a question of intelligence, it's a question of holding to what the world was when you were growing up and your mind was formed.

    4. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it becomes a prime motivator to work once basic income rolls around.

      Quite the opposite. Citizens that voted themselves onto permanent welfare will also vote themselves this treatment for free. And free television, and a free couch.

    5. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That live forever. Exactly what we need.

      Worse, it will be stupid rich people, because such a thing would be made hella expensive, because they can.

      So the rest of us would still have shorter lives, and rich assholes would live longer -- proving the universe is a shit hole.

      Of course, the reality is this is probably years away from being real, and they probably have no idea of what kinds of things they're going to fuck up for years after that. In which case, I'm happy to let the rich assholes who will get this first be the test subjects.

    6. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by urusan · · Score: 1

      I don't see how this is any different from today...

      Either way, you've got a world full of stupid people.

    7. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, see, it'll be worse than that. It'll be stupid, evil rich people living forever, that we'll have to put up with. Include politicians in that group. Think about this: Vladimir Putin running Russia for the next 100 years (or more). They'll do whatever they can to make sure the treatment is very expensive so only The Rich can afford it -- and as a matter of fact they'll probably buy up all the rights to it and bury it, so only The Few of The Rich can have it, and no one else. Hell, this is the sort of thing that, if it works and is safe, people will be killed over it.

      Part of me would like something like this; I'm an athlete now, and I'm in my 50's, and would love it to go back to being in my 20's physically and make the best of my chosen sport. But another part of me wants this to fail, not be real at all, because it could actually be very destructive to our civilization and our species as a whole.

    8. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, so only really smart rich people like Donald Trump will live forever. I feel so much better now.

    9. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps it becomes a prime motivator to work once basic income rolls around.

      Quite the opposite. Citizens that voted themselves onto permanent welfare will also vote themselves this treatment for free. And free television, and a free couch.

      Delusional thinking at it's finest.

      No matter how much citizens vote, a Ferrari will never be free. And you can sure as fuck bet that immortality won't be either.

    10. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This obsession can't be healthy. Do you remember all the people always going on and on about Osama and Obummer and shit for 8 years? They're some of the dumbest people in this country. I'd like to ask you to think about what this means, but I'm not sure you'll figure it out. You look exactly the same to me. Get some mental help.

    11. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Delusional thinking at it's finest.

      And yet you think free money for everyone for life is plausible? Now who's delusional?

    12. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Space Nutters want the universe filled with stupid people that live a few decades. Is that any better?

    13. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Jealousy is really ugly.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    14. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Shotgun · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Haven't been to a Bernie rally have you?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    15. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Delusional thinking at it's finest.

      And yet you think free money for everyone for life is plausible? Now who's delusional?

      Uh, when and where in my statement did I ever confirm that bullshit? No, I don't believe free money for life is plausible, but humans becoming unemployable is inevitable. And no matter how plausible UBI is or isn't, it won't stop a few hundred million idiots voting for their favorite liar promising to deliver it. The only delusion here is assuming that would never happen.

    16. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      If we were making "progress", shouldn't we have fewer problems now instead of more? I'd say, changes would just happen slower. But then, who knows. When people stop fearing death and become more financially secure, perhaps we'll all suddenly stop being assholes too.

    17. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      A few decades?!?! Let's not go crazy.

    18. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      That live forever. Exactly what we need.

      Actually, even if aging and major diseases are wiped out most people wouldn't live to 2000 due to accidents and natural disasters. Stupid people presumably will live less than the average due to more accidents.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    19. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      The only delusion here is assuming that would never happen.

      The delusion is thinking that it would stop at basic income.

    20. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that the God Emperor dies at the end, right?

    21. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jealousy is really ugly.

      Indeed. And stupid goes right to the bone.

    22. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will still die from other causes. Disease perhaps? Or a bullet.

    23. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by dlingman · · Score: 1

      That live forever. Exactly what we need.

      Don't worry. If they are that stupid, Darwin will have longer to collect them all...

    24. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't been to a Bernie rally have you?

      And how did those Bernie rallies work out?

    25. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      And those poor poor dogs are stuck with them.
       
      That's got to be ruff.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    26. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by ranton · · Score: 1

      And yet you think free money for everyone for life is plausible? Now who's delusional?

      Well, free money for everyone for life is certainly plausible. It would take less than $4 million dollars, or about 2-3 tomahawk missiles, each year to give every man, woman, and child one cent each year. Once you admit that is sustainable, it is merely a question of how much free money is sustainable. You may think that number is $100 per year, or $10,000 per year, but some amount is certainly sustainable.

      What people who complain about UBI often ignore in their comments is that UBI is not fundamentally different than any progressive tax system. If you take all government spending in the US ($6.9 trillion in 2017), only households making over around $125k-$150k are paying their "fair share".

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    27. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I too am concerned with all the stupid people that inherit their parents wealth and get positions because they "fit" the corporate culture living foewver.

    28. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if I offer a paymentplan, in which I pay the supplying drug company x amount of money each month for, eeehh forever. Then I might afford it.

    29. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Only if you don't realize that he lives on as worms.

    30. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'm still hopeful that one day I'll be able to download a car and 3D print/replicate it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If they could keep your brain young and able to learn rapidly then they might not stay stupid for long.

      What I wouldn't give to be able to pick up language like a four year old...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    32. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer a normal lifespan, but living all of it in a 20 year old's body.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    33. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by mentil · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that will work out exactly as well as keeping nuclear weapons secrets. Moreover, most of the research will have been published before it's a viable treatment anyone takes seriously, probably using procedures and theory that have been extensively documented (and made publicly available for years). If they suddenly STOP publishing about a specific avenue of research, and then surprise, immortality drug emerges, it'll be exactly as suspicious as when German and American scientists stopped publishing papers about nuclear fission research, and then surprise, nuclear weapons emerge.

      Other countries (socialized medicine anyone?) will develop it independently, and the cat will quickly be out of the bag. You're also ignoring biohackers and home CRISPR kits. People will fly/walk to other countries and risk their lives to get it done, even if secretly in a garage. It's going to be nearly impossible to keep it under control, attempting to do so via legal regulations would backfire hard.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    34. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by mentil · · Score: 1

      That's assuming the rate of accidental death stays the same once disease has been eliminated. Once it's the #2 cause of death (suicide will be #1) then LOTS of effort will be put into reducing accidents. Assume we have self-driving cars by then that cause no accidents. According to a list I found online, drug overdoses, fires, and choking/asphyxiation would then be the major causes of accidental death. Most people die in fires due to smoke inhalation, so that can be rolled in with asphyxiation, which could probably be mitigated by further bioengineering so people can hold their breaths longer. Overdosing can be mitigated by bioengineering, education, modelling of individual metabolism to customize dosage, or some broad replacement for drugs.
      "I've lived on this land for 500 years and I'm not going to let a volcano/earthquake/wildfire/tornado scare me away" will still be a problem, but umm if someone wants to die 'courageously standing up to mother nature' then they can go straight ahead, I'll chalk it up as 'suicide'.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    35. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2
      Apparently you're still laboring under the incorrect assumption that the world is fair and people play fair, especially The Rich.

      Buy up the technology
      Make everyone who understands it sign NDAs
      Patent/copyright the technology
      Refuse to license it to anyone for any price
      Sue the living daylights out of anyone who independently discovers the process/formula/protocol/whatever you want to call it
      Have less-than-credible-sounding people post on the Internet about it in such a way that you convince people it was never real, was always a hoax
      Fund 'research' that shows that it's a hoax, was never possible, was about as legit as all the 'cold fusion' claims of the last decade or so
      After a while nobody believes it was ever real, everyone stops talking about it
      Secret is now safe, only The Rich have access to it

      That's roughly how it would work, and don't think for a minute that similar things haven't been done before. Corporations do hostile take-overs and buy-outs all the time and then bury whatever it is.

    36. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      That's roughly how it would work, and don't think for a minute that similar things haven't been done before. Corporations do hostile take-overs and buy-outs all the time and then bury whatever it is.

      All of that is true and possible, but I think people would notice Vladimir Putin running around shirtless for the next 100 years.

    37. Re:A world full of stupid people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this would just mean that you don't die of old age
      an actuary once calculated that people on average would live to about 800 if nobody died of old age (in other words sooner or later some type of calamity will get you)

  4. Just me, if you don't mind by AlanBDee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would love to live an extended life or "forever". I just don't want everyone else to as well. The social and economic stresses it would put on the finite resources of this planet scare me. I think there's a reasonable chance that we'll see this in our lifetimes and it may be things like war that ends up killing people instead of "natural causes".

    1. Re: Just me, if you don't mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wonâ(TM)t. Only the billionaires of the world will get this treatment.

    2. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by quantaman · · Score: 2

      I would love to live an extended life or "forever". I just don't want everyone else to as well. The social and economic stresses it would put on the finite resources of this planet scare me. I think there's a reasonable chance that we'll see this in our lifetimes and it may be things like war that ends up killing people instead of "natural causes".

      I agree overpopulation is a serious consequence of life extension.

      But people dying preventable deaths is hardly the optimal solution. If it's a choice between people dying of old age and restrictions on reproduction I'd choose restrictions on reproduction. Sure it's a terrible violation of human rights, but so is dying.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by ranton · · Score: 2

      I think there's a reasonable chance that we'll see this in our lifetimes and it may be things like war that ends up killing people instead of "natural causes".

      More likely it will be being middle class or lower which kills people, once it is priced at $50k per year per person (in 2018 dollars) to stop this from creating too much of a strain on resources.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    4. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by crow · · Score: 2

      In Red Mars, they solved the resource problem of immortality by instituting a one child per couple family. If you do the math, each generation being 50% the size of the previous one with no deaths results in a doubling of the population. They proposed creating a market for the half child allowance each person receives, so those that didn't want children could sell to someone who did.

      Of course, that requires a very strong government, which has its own problems, but at least there are solutions.

      On the practical side, mutations will tend to accumulate over ever longer lifespans, resulting in an ever increasing opportunity to study cancer. We may see lots of people hitting 100, but not many reaching 200.

    5. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by tomhath · · Score: 2

      Hopefully by the time this Fountain of Youth therapy is available to a population the people will also have the where withal and good sense to practice family planning. Earth would be a great place to live if we could get the population under a billion and keep it there.

    6. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by magarity · · Score: 1

      I would love to live an extended life or "forever".

      "Extended" would be cool but forever would not. The Black Hole era will probably be boring and the Dark Era will be downright tedious.

    7. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go outside at night and look up.

      Nothing is limited. Especially when our greatest minds never die.

      Imagine if Newton, Einstein, Dirac, every famous scientist, mathematician, engineer, and inventor that ever lived was still alive today.

    8. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really isn't. Population is currently controlled far more by birth rate than death rate. You get the same effect from clinical immortality as every couple having 1.9 more children over the course of their lives. Not that huge of a difference for resource consumption (maybe 20% more than would be consumed otherwise), while you get to keep all the great minds, and further develop those minds beyond what is currently possible in a single lifetime.

    9. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you don't have to worry about overpopulation as much as you might thing. Women only have so many eggs. Once they run out, that's it, no more kids. So living longer won't mean having more kids. And people who know they will live a long time will likely put off having kids until they are more financially stable... Once they get comfortable with that life, they won't want to have kids. :) And finally, some people have kids so that there is someone to take care of them when they get old. But if they won't ever be "old" in the traditional sense, as in frail and such, they won't need that. All those things will work to reduce the birth rate significantly. And of course all the old diseases and accidents will still be around to kill people. Old age doesn't actually kill off all that many people, it just makes their life suck, and makes them a drain on resources. I wonder how the resources needed to care for the elderly would compare to the resources needed to extend the average life span to 130. Might even win out in that trade.

    10. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      In Red Mars, you could grow plants in near vacuum by chanting over them and resource expropriation somehow leads to unlimited additional resources being provided.

      You already touched on Red Mar's idiocy regarding government structure.

      It's a silly thing to cite.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You have no clue what rights are. You cannot violate your own rights; dying of old age is something you do to yourself.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    12. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If it's a choice between people dying of old age and restrictions on reproduction I'd choose restrictions on reproduction.

      I favor freedom of choice for each individual --- I suggest you be allowed to pick between.... [1] No concessions, But no access to this special treatment AND [2] Access to this special treatment, with an agreed upon restriction/caveat.... (1) As a condition to receiving a rejuvenate treatment like this --- If you are a child at the time, then nothing special is required, but on the other hand: If you are a fertile man/woman able to produce a child or fertilize an egg, then you will receive at the same time as treatment starts, an extra surgical or chemical procedure specific to your biological sex such as vasectomy or tubal ligation that acts to help ensure no more viable eggs or sperm will be released that could lead to intercourse resulting in offspring, and your ability to reproduce is going to be curtailed from that day forward, AND [2] If some method is found to reverse the sterilization procedure, then you agree not to reverse it --- If you reverse it, or are found to have a child other than a child you adopted or had BEFORE the process, then you are banned from further rejuvenation treatments.

    13. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by mysidia · · Score: 1

      More likely it will be being middle class or lower which kills people

      More likely: Disease. A population that has a longer turnover is less able to evolve and adapt --- humans as a species already have this problem to an extent; living 75 years or so more than most species.

      once it is priced at $50k per year per person (in 2018 dollars) to stop this from creating too much of a strain on resources.

      Such insane pricing would give rise to 'generic' unauthorized versions. You take a flight to some shady country, don't ask too many questions, and you get a pirated version of the $50k medication for $20.

    14. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life spans are decreasing, not increasing. A large fraction of teens are getting diabetes and heart diseases. We won't see extended life in our lifetime. We don't know enough about how our bodies work. Notice that the mice research says "restore some biomarkers to youthful levels" instead of "extended the average life". We can't extend 'lower' animal life yet. Some of the procedures may increase old age quality of life, but you can already do that simply by eating better.

      What exactly does eating better mean? Science isn't advanced enough to say. Did you know fatty foods are considered high glycemic foods for some people with specific DNA sequences while they're considered low glycemic foods for the rest of the population? Have you had a DNA test to see what's the best diet for you at our correct level of knowledge? Did you repeat that DNA test from multiple locations to ensure you hadn't absorbed a twin? Do you follow mainstream diet advice from the food industry? Do you follow diet advice from anyone else? Any general advice isn't good enough, health is a personal issue. There's more we don't know about how we work than what we do know.

    15. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by quantaman · · Score: 1

      AND [2] If some method is found to reverse the sterilization procedure, then you agree not to reverse it --- If you reverse it, or are found to have a child other than a child you adopted or had BEFORE the process, then you are banned from further rejuvenation treatments.

      You can control overpopulation without making people choose between children and not dying of old age.

      People will still be mortal, they'll still die for many other reasons. You can have lotteries or other mechanisms for distributing fertility rights.

      Remember, a big consequence of this treatment will be a massive drop in fertility. Age is a big motivator in the decision to have children, but how many people will still want to have a kid in their twenties or thirties when they can wait till they're 80?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    16. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Such insane pricing would give rise to 'generic' unauthorized versions. You take a flight to some shady country, don't ask too many questions, and you get a pirated version of the $50k medication for $20.

      www.soyouwanttoliveforevereh.ca

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    17. Re: Just me, if you don't mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Itâ(TM)s hard to tackle multi-generational problems when those who spawn an idea die before it can be implemented. Imagine a project that is so massive that it would take 1000 generations worth of current lifespans to complete. Given political turmoil and the desire for subsequent generations to âoedisruptâ the status quo, I donâ(TM)t think that projects like these could be completed without increasing lifespan. Projects like colonizing other worlds or surviving the destruction of the sun may thus be impossible unless people accept increasing life span as a necessity. Also, I donâ(TM)t desire death so why wouldnâ(TM)t I want this? Issues like overpopulation and resource depletion will happen anyway so we may as weâ(TM)ll be forced to create solutions.

    18. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by ranton · · Score: 1

      Such insane pricing would give rise to 'generic' unauthorized versions. You take a flight to some shady country, don't ask too many questions, and you get a pirated version of the $50k medication for $20.

      If this was actually a problem, and resource scarcity hasn't been solved, then it would be quite easy for governments to track people who are 150 years old and shouldn't be. Or you show up at an emergency room with a 20 year old's body but an 80 year old birth certificate. A rogue nation without the necessary controls would be treated like a rogue nuclear nation today, with all the sanctions to go with it.

      When something as dangerous as medication which could get populations to 20 billion in no time, necessary controls will be created. Just like how nuclear and chemical weapons were treated different than hand guns or tanks.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    19. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree overpopulation is a serious consequence of life extension.

      We don't actually know that overpopulation is going to be a problem. In fact, in most 1st world countries, depopulation is becoming a problem. Overpopulation is more of a problem with countries with worse socioeconomic statuses. And those people would not have access to such treatments most likely. There is good reason to think that if we extended lives, people would extend having children too. Overpopulation assumes that immortality would not affect any other part of humanity: politics, culture, religion, philosophy. There is more reason to think it will though, in ways we really cannot imagine.

    20. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by urusan · · Score: 1

      This technology has a lot of the solutions to its own problems embedded in it.

      A youthful populace means higher productivity, both between not taking care of elders and not taking care of as many children. If the working age today is 18-67, that's 49 years (45 for the college educated and even less for those with even more education) out of 78, which means 29 dependent years (33 for college educated workers). Only 62.8% of the current lifespan is productive (57.7% for the college educated). By simply getting the old portion of the population back into the workforce, productivity would go up 14.1% immediately (increasing US GDP by $2.6 trillion if this happened today) and medical expenditures would go down by about a third (saving about $1.1 trillion in the US if this happened today), representing an overall increase in available production of nearly 20%. As children became scarcer as well, we'd see up to another 23% base increase in GDP, with reductions in education and medical spending amplifying the effect. We could easily see a 50% increase in productivity over today, and possibly much more. Also, this doesn't even take into account that the prime work years are a small percentage of the total working time, and that a worker with a 60 year old's experience and a 20 year old's energy and mental flexibility could be drastically more effective than any worker alive today. What will this extra production be turned towards?

      A person with an indefinite lifespan would also have a lot more at stake when it comes to taking care of the planet. It's easy to look at the global warming data today and say "well all the really bad stuff doesn't happen until 2100" and stop caring about the problem. I'm 32 years old, so I'm very unlikely to make it past 2065, and I'd have to make it to 115 to live to see 2100 (which would get me on the oldest living people lists). Even if I have children at 35, they're unlikely to live to 2100, though it's much more in the realm of possibility. Only my grandchildren and later generations are likely to live in the post-2100 world, and I won't meet my grandchildren for another 20-30 years (and at this point I'll be dependent on my savings and children, and so not able to make much change to the situation). This isn't to say I don't personally care about those year 2100 people, but rather to show how far away 2100 really is, it's further away from me than the moon is. Caring about the Earth in 2100 requires a lot of abstract thought, and it's easy to lose sight of it in the day to day. However, if I am going to live to be 130 or even indefinitely, and I'm going to be well the whole time, then I will make it to 2115 easily and I might reasonably be kicking around in the 2500s if this technology keeps improving. Suddenly I have a lot of self-interest in the matter of the state of the world in 2100, since if the Earth is in serious trouble by then and I might be killed early by it, I lose many years of life over something I could have prevented. I also care less about the amount of short-term growth/production because I have more time to benefit from it. While not everyone will care under these circumstances, a lot will, especially among those with the resources to do something about it. Combined with the additional productivity mentioned above, it seems to me that more and more of our GDP will go towards investing in and protecting our environment in the post-aging world.

      There may need to be some kind of family planning laws (ex. one child per couple) or (dis-)incentives (ex. legally having to pay 100% of the costs to raise your children in a modern society, including medical care, education, and at least basic new housing for them in their adult lives, with any shortfalls turning into impossible to escape loans on the parents much like the US student loan system works but on the responsible parents instead of the children) to curb excessively large families in settled areas (ex. almost all of Earth). That said, population growth is already slowing down massively worldwide without any

    21. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's single parenthood. Growing up to single parents, especially a single mom, is the highest risk factor fir infant mortality, uicide, teen pregnancy, poverty, unemployment, incarceration, death by cop, drug addiction, and cancer. Check the stats: it's unpopular to publish, but it is the *largest* social risk factor for most negative health and behavioral issues.

    22. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could put a cap on it by requiring that anyone undergoing treatment also be sterilized. You're allowed to live forever as long as you don't add to the population.

    23. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine if those smart people were never born because their parents decided to "save the planet" by not having children.

      Why have environmentalists become so anti-human? Why not just go on a killing spree and take out the 6 billion extra humans? I bet you could justify it through some reasoning involving carbon footprints.

      Everyone knows you folks who like to talk about fighting climate change actually do nothing in real life to fight it. You think because you're spreading the message you have the moral license to go out and "pollute" since you've done so much to fight the problem. Look at Gore and DiCaprio flying around the world to virtue signal to their fellow cult members

    24. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space Nutters will not be stopped by logic, facts, or reason. Humanity MUST expand into space ... because the SPECIIIEEEEES! Or something. It was never quite clear what motivates Space Nutters to want to die en masse in a vacuum.

    25. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Thanks for addressing this imaginary problem.

      Let's allow these guys to handle the real ones for now.

    26. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by Rastl · · Score: 1

      In Red Mars, you could grow plants in near vacuum by chanting over them and resource expropriation somehow leads to unlimited additional resources being provided. You already touched on Red Mar's idiocy regarding government structure. It's a silly thing to cite.

      It's not such a silly thing to cite since the series of books went over multiple forms of government. It also showed what could happen with each one. It's not science but it is interesting.

      They didn't 'grow plants in a new vacuum by chanting over them'. They had a world class expert in closed biosystems and they grew their food in sealed greenhouses tailored to growing plants. The fact you think that's what's in the book says you didn't really pay attention.

      Having said all that the series does bring up interesting things about population control. How the superpowers expected to use Mars to drain off surplus population. The 1.5 child allowance. The moral right to the life extending process. They're worth debating. They're not worth citing.

      I just happen to be reading the series again because I like the way that these things evolve and the repercussions of them. It's a slog to read all three books but please do before attempting to refute things.

    27. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would adopting additional children be considered bad?

    28. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by m.w.hurley · · Score: 1

      Oops, responding as me.
      Why would adopting additional children be considered bad?

    29. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You need to read it again...the world class expert 'learned' how to grow plants in the thin atmosphere by chanting over them (the chanting over them was just the hippy version of 'reverse the polarity of the tachyon beams' style bullshit).

      Also the entire colony, including the 'world class expert in closed biosystems' was recruited from the parking lot of a dead show, 5 hours after the show ended...because reason. IIRC part of reason was: 'Deadheads are actually the smartest people, all the smartest people are hippies.' That's pretty much where it exceeded my ability to suspend disbelief.

      It was a silly book written to play to the world view and egos of silly people. I won't send another penny the authors way on any more of the series.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    30. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by swillden · · Score: 1

      Who cares if the books had other silliness?

      This one point stands just fine on its own. Mathematically, if each generation is 50% of the size of the previous generation, then you double the starting population and hit a stable limit. This isn't an argument that depends on the authoritative statement of the author, it's a simple mathematical fact. Why bother attacking -- or even considering -- the source when the source is so clearly irrelevant to the validity of the idea?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    31. Re: Just me, if you don't mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution works best with a large healthy population. Every time we need a genius one is born.

    32. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by mentil · · Score: 1

      Why a billion? Why not a million? Why stop there, why not a thousand? Actually, a thousand is more than I care for, I can really only have about 200 relationships at one time. We really ought to just be a tribe of 200 humans, any more is pointless.
      Also, you're assuming you get to be one of those surviving humans rather than one of the billions lying in a mass grave from the purge. Mass forced-sterilizations will be violently opposed; far more likely is people have to decide whether to have children OR to live forever. Many would rather work at a school or day-care center once a week than have children of their own.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    33. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Why would adopting additional children be considered bad?

      It wouldn't be considered bad. And it's just an example of one kind of regulation that could be used to
      help avoid the availability of rejuvenation causing population armageddon --- If that's an issue.

      Other ideas would be to start teraforming and colonizing other planets, moons, and other bodies and space, then
      move large percentages of the populations to the colonies and find LARGE stashes of additional resources,
      which could eliminate the need for regulation.

      Another thought would be.... What if the miracle/magical "Rejuvenation" treatment were required to be administered to (A) young people before puberty, and (B) People who have already aged so much, they no longer have any reproductive capacity?

      People would ideally receive the treatment somewhere between Age 9 and 10, and the treatment would be designed to suspend
      further sexual development / "aging" processes which also delays by hundreds of years your ability to reproduce -- Ideally you could live to age 80 or so, and a number of years later at your choosing: After you've "Lived the full live", you end the rejuvenation treatment a few years before the time you are ready to have your own kids -- at the time choose to continue aging and sexual development for 60 more years, And when your physical age corresponds to 60 or so, you are allowed to resume rejuvenation indefinitely.

      This would also help give any gender fluid individuals ample opportunity to choose what biological sex they develop as --- Aging is so heinous, the only compassionate/moral thing to do is to suspend aging and sexual development for everyone until they've reached the age of majority and the mental maturity to make these important decisions; Not just when and If to have kids, but whether you will be a man or a woman, Etc.

    34. Re:Just me, if you don't mind by nicklikesfire · · Score: 1

      You need to read it again...the world class expert 'learned' how to grow plants in the thin atmosphere by chanting over them (the chanting over them was just the hippy version of 'reverse the polarity of the tachyon beams' style bullshit).

      Also the entire colony, including the 'world class expert in closed biosystems' was recruited from the parking lot of a dead show, 5 hours after the show ended...because reason. IIRC part of reason was: 'Deadheads are actually the smartest people, all the smartest people are hippies.' That's pretty much where it exceeded my ability to suspend disbelief.

      It was a silly book written to play to the world view and egos of silly people. I won't send another penny the authors way on any more of the series.

      Are you and I thinking of the same book?

  5. Here's the ad by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (Not a rickroll, I swear)

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
  6. I vant your blood by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Other research has shown that giving old mice blood transfusions from young ones can restore some biomarkers to youthful levels.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. Re:I vant your blood by HiThere · · Score: 1

      There are several similar studies. IIRC, the one about young-blood mice decided that the blood of the older mice contained something "poisonous", that could probably be filtered out if they could figure out what it was. I've run across other studies that blamed aging on the increasing proportion of senescent cells. (This isn't actually a contradiction, as possibly the senescent cells generate the chemical, whatever it is.)

      Another study that I ran across blamed the problem on the increasing number of cells whose mitochondrial population had become dominated by a mutated version that didn't work well. I'm not sure whether this is a different model or not.

      Etc. From the summary this guy looks like an outlier, but who knows, it could be a different way of saying the same thing.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  7. Human treatment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The human treatment will cost hundreds of thousands...millions?

    The billionaires will live to 130 with great health and the rest of us plebes? Sorry, insurance doesn't cover cosmetic treatments.

    Everyday, instead of moving towards a Star Trek type of World, we seem to be moving towards a dystopia. Our grandkids are gonna live in a really shitty World. Global Warming, incessant wealth disparity, incessant wars, national debt ballooning - mostly to help those billionaires, religion becoming ever more powerful and oppressive (I'm looking at YOU Evangelicals!), ....

    I"m two steps away from wearing a sandwich board and riding the NY Subway and tweeting and mumbling, "Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!..."

    1. Re:Human treatment. by quantaman · · Score: 2

      The human treatment will cost hundreds of thousands...millions?

      The billionaires will live to 130 with great health and the rest of us plebes? Sorry, insurance doesn't cover cosmetic treatments.

      In the developing world sure, but within a few years of it being established everyone will get some form of the treatment in the west.

      The rich control a lot for certain, but the GOP showdown was a battle between Trump and Cruz, the two people most hated by the elites in the GOP. And Trump actually became President.

      You think you Trump ran an effective populist campaign? Just wait for "Vote for me or you will literally die (of old age)".

      I don't think that would be a particularly close election.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Human treatment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A side effect will be the desire to pee in public on hydrents and trees.

    3. Re:Human treatment. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Yes, the elites seem to be hating Trump with a passion. Yes indeed. All the way to the bank.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Human treatment. by mentil · · Score: 1

      The US health care system seems to be doing a pretty good job of preventing that so far, as congress hasn't done much to make life-saving treatments cheaper.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    5. Re:Human treatment. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The US health care system seems to be doing a pretty good job of preventing that so far, as congress hasn't done much to make life-saving treatments cheaper.

      Politically, there's a big difference between: "Poor people sometimes die of preventable causes" and "Everyone but the rich dies of this preventable cause".

      --
      I stole this Sig
  8. The Dream of Immortality by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

    I don't want to live forever (and that's impossible anyways, entropy always wins)... but I wouldn't mind a solid chance of living until *I* decide I don't want to live any longer rather than being slowly crippled by age until my body gives up on me.

    1. Re:The Dream of Immortality by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Read carefully. The guy is saying he'd live to 130, but his body would be like a 22yr old. I've listened to other scientist who are working on aging, and as I understood it, the emphasis has moved from quantity to quality.

      To over simplify, there are some inescapable realities in biology that means the fuel tank will eventually run dry. 120 was quoted as the limit, but it was a vague limit. 130 is within reason. But, what they were discovering is that there are things could be done to make the years after 70 something more than an inexorable decent into increasing arthritis, wasting muscles, and ever more brittle bone structure.

      If someone was to tell me that my days will be cut off on my 70th birthday, but my body would be as virulent as it was in my 20s till that point, I'd jump on the chance.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    2. Re:The Dream of Immortality by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Buckminster Fuller published notes about theoretical possibilities of living eternally, even if entropy is irreversible. He suggested a form of suspended existence where where increasingly short moments of conscious existence would occur interspersed among increasingly long periods of zero entropy generating suspension. The notes were _fascinating_, I'll post them or a link to them if I can find them.

    3. Re:The Dream of Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Entropy won't win until the sun output is no more. Earth is not a thermodynamically isolated system. If the life expectancy is on this time scale, I would said, forever seems the right word.

    4. Re:The Dream of Immortality by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      If you bet against yourself ... your sad predictions will always come true.

    5. Re:The Dream of Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and that's impossible anyways, entropy always wins"

      So how did life evolve from simpler forms or even just a soup of atoms in the first place? Oh yeah, there's that star fusing four million tons of hydrogen every second not too far away.

      I'll take a few million more years of life, borrowed from that 4 million tons/s of anti-entropy. It's just being radiated out into space anyways for the moment, why waste it?

    6. Re:The Dream of Immortality by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, yes. But that is not going to be possible for a long, long time, if ever. Anti-aging scams are as old as the human race, this is just one more of those.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  9. Sounds good to me by nagora · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'd love to live to 130 in the body of a 22 year old, but I think she'd be doing most of the work towards the end...

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  10. More than telomeres? by bahwi · · Score: 1

    Please tell me this is more than just lengthening telomeres, that's more of a symptom of aging than the cause of it. (Yeah, there's diseases related to it, again, symptoms of aging rather than the cause).

    1. Re:More than telomeres? by Graydyn+Young · · Score: 5, Informative

      They are vague on the details, but it sounds like they are starting with fixing a congenital heart defect in certain types of badly inbred dogs. They even mention that it's not really age reversal but "pet owners won’t worry about semantics". As far as I can tell, they are just taking the anti-aging angle to drive the hype train.

    2. Re:More than telomeres? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Yeah, maybe. But...they could make it totally legit by calling it "Aging-Reversal Blockchains"!

    3. Re: More than telomeres? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been tried. Causes cancer.

      The excessive presence of telomere was observed to encourage cancer growth.

      If it's going to happen (immortality) it will be done using nanotechnology. Nano machines could be programmed to keep cells intact theoretically forever.

  11. What if we just count age in dog years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will that work?

  12. Sorry .. just no by AnthonywC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not discussing whether it is even scientifically feasible, I abhor the idea that people will live "forever" in a youthful human body. Because the last thing that this world needs is the ability for the rich and powerful to live even longer, like some real life vampires that will literally prey on the rest of humanity. Before they solve aging, they better work on improving humanity itself, because biologically we are all selfish monkeys due to our genetics.

    1. Re:Sorry .. just no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That already happens. In the highly advanced and forward thinking, soon to be Country of CA, richer folks can pay for transfusions of blood from teenagers. It's $8,000 for a 2 hour transfusion of one liter: https://www.ambrosiaplasma.com/

    2. Re:Sorry .. just no by c · · Score: 1

      Because the last thing that this world needs is the ability for the rich and powerful to live even longer, like some real life vampires that will literally prey on the rest of humanity.

      Yeah, but if you were going to have to eat the rich, wouldn't you prefer that they be tender and succulent instead of tough and stringy?

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    3. Re:Sorry .. just no by gweihir · · Score: 1

      As there is basically zero chance of this working, you should probably not be too concerned about it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Sorry .. just no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's this? A nah-sayer on Slashdot?? I don't believe it!

    5. Re:Sorry .. just no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're pretending like they don't already do this.

      The wealthy regularly undergo blood transfusions like the ones mentioned in TFS in order to maintain a degree of youthfulness.

      Why do you think blood banks are always short on blood?

      And the fact that poor people give it away for free is the best part of it all.

      Don't donate blood. If anything, you should be compensated for your donation. The blood they acquire is never given away.

      Never.

    6. Re:Sorry .. just no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before they solve aging, they better work on improving humanity itself, because biologically we are all selfish monkeys due to our genetics.

      The problem is you can't be sure what 'improved humanity' would have to say, or whether you would like it. What if the greater good... for the environment and our species, is for 99% of people to eat cyanide? Today's 1% is small enough and probably educated enough to be immortal without overburdening our, right now, only planet. After living for 1000 years (assuming no mental deterioration) maybe they could amass greater wisdom and accomplish mightier feats than what anyone is capable of today. At the very least it might encourage the type of long term thinking that is right now lacking in our stewardship of limited resources, or planning our route to other worlds.

      Selfish monkeys who are only invested in their own survival, or maybe of their genes for a short while ahead, aren't competent at these tasks when their conscious horizon of future events is measured in decades rather than centuries, and eventually even that might not be sufficient. Since it doesn't seem like we will evolve an immortal hive mind any time soon, long lived monkeys might be the next best thing from species-survival perspective.

  13. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The beauty industry has almost abandoned torturing animals to be replaced by techies torturing them.

  14. Holmes is back? by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    Elizabeth, is that you?

  15. In other news, cars will never fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have it written out on this napkin right here. See, we'll just use nanobots to repair all damage and do upgrades *forever*. And the code is 100% error free!!!! I marked the little checkbox that said so!!!

    More seriously, folks, the consequences of aging tissues, even if the telomere cutoff is addressed, is cancer due to long-term chemical exposure and transcription errors. There *is no cure* for cancer in general, even though some have been successfully managed with expense and pain. It's a trade-off between healing from damage, correctly, and accumulating damage from the healing process itself, particularly transcription errors that will trigger cancer. There are also aging isues like growth of cartilage accumulating, arterial structures failing due to plaque buildup, bony structures due to accumulated microdamage, etc.

    1. Re:In other news, cars will never fail by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You're making assumptions about which approaches will work. OTOH, you're right in that life will eventually lead to cancer unless something else kills it first.

      I'll grant that the summary sounded like he might be lengthening the teleomeres, but that wasn't really clear. IIRC, it's also been shown that as a simple approach it won't work. The teleomeres are just one marker, and some cell lines don't use them anyway. (E.g., I believe that epidermal cell lines don't use shortened teleomeres to decide not to grow. They depend more no neighbor sensing. But it could be that the study I'm remembering was talking about the cells lining the intestines.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  16. Life is meant to be finite by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that our life spans are meant to be finite and I think if we embrace this understanding, we will lose our fear of death. IMHO, people concerned about living forever are not enjoying their lives presently. I would rather enjoy the life that I have then try to spend life looking for the fountain of youth. As someone who has seen people in various states of death and decline, I would sooner die than experience that pain and suffering. The world is also pretty inhospitable so I am not terribly attached to this life. The world is overpopulated now. Imagine if people started living vastly longer lives. The world's problems would only get worse.

    1. Re:Life is meant to be finite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution, of course, is to let those with inferior intelligences die off, while those that can enhance society live in perpetuity. Let the high IQ types be enhanced with immortality, while the poors are allowed to live and die as is normal.

      Make those who are recruited into the world of immortality prove themselves worthy, and the system will function forever, while ensuring fresh blood and minds are introduced into the system every now and then.

      Yeah, it sucks for the poors, but sometimes you have to crack a few eggs if you want to make an omelette. Besides, the immortals will be forced to ensure the survival of the poors, to a certain extent, so it's not like they are completely winning in this game. Imagine the pain and agony of having to keep an inferior human species alive.

      It's like how we support dark skinned Africans, in a way. I'm not being racist. They just have an average IQ of 65 compared to the 95 of white people, and 105 of asians. Facts are facts, niggaz, fo sheezy muh nigdizzeezies.

    2. Re:Life is meant to be finite by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I'm all for immortality, but after a certain period of time, the must live off world; be it in a space colony, on mars, etc. At some point you must leave the "nest".

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Life is meant to be finite by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Good thing this company isn't talking about immortality. They are talking about pushing life to the limits that our bodies will support, without having individual parts breaking down and making the latter half of what we have so miserable.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    4. Re:Life is meant to be finite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you don't. That's some kind of pseudo-religious woo you picked up as a child reading sci-fi written by Space Nutters.

      Space is dead, deadly, empty, hostile, and barren. It's not like the movies.

      Contemplate the enormous chasm of nothing that is space. Then ask yourself how many times you have to breathe in a minute. Or eat in a day.

    5. Re:Life is meant to be finite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has already been thought out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_B_R_0_2_B

    6. Re:Life is meant to be finite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the contrary, the fear of death will become outstanding. People will still die in accident but as seeing death is an rare occurrence, it will be traumatizing.

      You can understand that simply by killing a chicken in front of people, this simple act, that was once just normal, is now terrifying people.

    7. Re:Life is meant to be finite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. I feel I can best demonstrate why by simply rewording your post:

      I think that our modes of travel are meant to be ground-based and I think if we embrace this understanding, we will lose our fear of driving. IMHO, people concerned about driving are not enjoying their lives presently. I would rather enjoy driving in a car on the ground then try to spend life looking for the secret of flight. As someone who has seen people in various states of falling from high places, I would sooner stay on the ground than experience that pain and suffering. The ground is also pretty hospitable so I am not terribly attached to trying to fly. The world is congested with traffic now. Imagine if people started flying. The world's problems would only get worse.

    8. Re:Life is meant to be finite by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      "The world is overpopulated now"

      How can this possibly be true if humans only occupy 3% of the farmable land and less than 1% of the US population is farmers?

      "I think that our life spans are meant to be finite"

      Do you start cheering at funerals? Not my style.

    9. Re:Life is meant to be finite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to live forever, might as well go forth and venture off into the void to seed the universe with life.

    10. Re:Life is meant to be finite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fair to have that opinion. You can opt to not use life extending drugs and die. I'll happily live on and enjoy my existence.

    11. Re:Life is meant to be finite by Eloking · · Score: 1

      I think that our life spans are meant to be finite and I think if we embrace this understanding, we will lose our fear of death. IMHO, people concerned about living forever are not enjoying their lives presently. I would rather enjoy the life that I have then try to spend life looking for the fountain of youth. As someone who has seen people in various states of death and decline, I would sooner die than experience that pain and suffering. The world is also pretty inhospitable so I am not terribly attached to this life.

      Well, I'm the perfect example of that assessment.

      I Atheist so I believe in total oblivion after death. Some other think of this as peaceful (returning from where we came from) but, in my case, it scare me. And one of those reason for that difference is that I enjoy life.

      People seem to focus on the negative side of humanity (like you apparently) but I find that the vast majority of people in the world have good heart. We just like to focus on the few very bad one. And if you don't like people around you, well just move to a different place and start anew. And if there's a cure to aging, there's no urge to settle down "before it's too late".

      The world is overpopulated now. Imagine if people started living vastly longer lives. The world's problems would only get worse.

      I don't agree. First, the aging population is going to be a far bigger problem (IMO) for developed countries (Look at Japan, their population have started to decrease because they don't like immigrant). Second, I've asked around me about that question (if I offered you a pill that reverse and and stop aging, will you take it?) and you'll be amazed how many people will just reject it for variety of reasons, ranging from "It's Sinful" to "it's innatural" to simply "I don't want to live forever". For a start, I think that most person with a strongly follow their religion will reject this (at least for a while). Also, I think this pill is going to be very expensive for a while so, again, most people won't have access to it.

      Maybe one day, in a long LONG time, most people will start to take it, but a lot of things will be completly different then.

      --
      Elok
  17. Who the fuck wrote this summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever it was has the reading comprehension of a load of bread. Since when is an explicit denial that "all loot boxes are gambling" somehow an admission?

    1. Re:Who the fuck wrote this summary? by hey! · · Score: 1

      You forgot the irony tag.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  18. I'm glad they're starting with dogs by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    I like most dogs more than I like most people.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  19. Hurry up, dammit!

    I'm old enough to remember when Star Trek and Brady Bunch were first shown...in reruns on my local channel in the 1970s.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  20. Regulatory friction by Shotgun · · Score: 2

    FTS:
    "It's not just a big organism close to humans. It's something people will pay for, and the FDA process is much faster. We'll do dog trials, and that'll be a product, and that'll pay for scaling up in human trials."

    I'm not going to claim that all regulation is bad, but there is a common theme out there that regulation is NEVER bad. This sentence can be read to say that they could alleviate pain and suffering faster, but the FDA is in the way.

    From my own experience, I've seen the same thing with the FAA in my non-professional life. Just about anything that can be considered innovative in the GA aviation market occurs in Experimental Aviation. It is just too hard to get anything through the FAA blockade.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    1. Re:Regulatory friction by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      FTS: "It's not just a big organism close to humans. It's something people will pay for, and the FDA process is much faster. We'll do dog trials, and that'll be a product, and that'll pay for scaling up in human trials."

      I'm not going to claim that all regulation is bad, but there is a common theme out there that regulation is NEVER bad. This sentence can be read to say that they could alleviate pain and suffering faster, but the FDA is in the way.

      So you want them to start selling life-extending treatments without conducting trials on the safety and efficacy of the treatments.

      Do you want a zombie apocalypse? Because that's how you get a zombie apocalypse.

    2. Re:Regulatory friction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This sentence can be read to say that they could alleviate pain and suffering faster, but the FDA is in the way."

      They don't know if there are negative side-effects though. So if they just let any fly-by-night company sell any substance because it *might* have some benefit (hmm, that sounds a lot like the supplement industry), but it turns out to cause serious long-term negative issues, then they would have done everyone a disservice. The human body is an incredibly complex chemical reaction, messing with that reaction in untested ways isn't a good idea.

    3. Re:Regulatory friction by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Bwahahaha!!! Jeesh, you're funny!

      Check out any rest/retirement home anywhere near you. There is a significant percentage of people there whose bodies are so wrecked with age related diseases that they are basically invalids that have been warehoused to die. The "issues" are currently so negative that they have been removed from the world. They have NO expectation of anything "long-term", positive or negative.

      Most of them would line up to trade their next few years for a few days of youthfulness. And, I would find it to be a VERY good idea.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    4. Re:Regulatory friction by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen what goes into a "trial"? Have you noticed that there are medicines that have been used in other countries to effectively treat diseases for thousands of years, but this countries FAA won't accept that data to demonstrate that it is safe?

      Testing a substance for safety and efficacy is one thing. Making it so difficult and expensive that nothing but Big-Pharma can even attempt to try is another.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  21. I support your right to kill yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I'm an optimist and I'll choose to live.

  22. Stealth startup by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    The stealth startup

    I assume "stealth startup" is code for "we haven't got any money to spend on advertising."

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Stealth startup by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Probably add to that "We do not really have a product either"...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  23. Please Hurry... by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 1

    I am 55.... I don't want to be the last human to die.

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  24. How soon in dog years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How soon will this be ready for the public in dog years? Or has that changed already?

  25. And of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it's the man's fault.

  26. puppy melt by epine · · Score: 1

    "I Can't Look!" Gesture

    During the infamous transporter room scene of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Chief Rand mutters a horrified "Oh, no, they're forming!" and turns away when the two doomed crew members start to materialize on Enterprise's transporter pad. Everyone else in the room is frozen in stunned horror at what they just witnessed.

    Starfleet Transporter Tech: Enterprise, what we got back didn't live long ... Fortunately.

    Voice of God internal monologue

    (Just for the record, Don LaFontaine always left me writhing in my seat.)

    If I were into this kind of thing, I might upload a certain iconic scene from Clockwork Orange with Beethoven's symphony replaced by a gravely Don LaFontaine voice-over narration: in a world ruled by mediocrity, one man dares ...

    No, wait, I'm conflating Amadeus with Dr Ludovico Faustus.

    alt.fido.die.die.die

    1. Re:puppy melt by epine · · Score: 1

      YouTube links break, without leaving behind even a title archive (bastards), so "just for the record":

      1. 1) Island of Dr Moreau movie trailer, keyed to the line "on the eighth day" shortly followed by "something impossible ... unmistakably human ... undeniably animal ..."
      2. 2) Ludovico Einaudi Greats Hits 2018 (first impression: Keith Jarrett jams with Enya; almost, but not quite, entirely unlike Beethoven by just the right amount to give Alex an additional fit)
      3. 3) The SimpsonsA Clockwork Orange Parody (Santa's Little Helper)

      ———

      #2 is a nested joke on "conflating".

      #3—in which many doggies come to dodgy ends, Simpsons' style—plays on All Your Usenet are Belong to Wesley Crusher (alt.ensign.wesley.die.die.die), which loops back to my opening TV Tropes Star Trek moment.

      But all you geek bloodhounds out there got those obvious propeller-head cultural references, buried like a stinky bone in minor misdirection—despite the minor down draft—right?

      (Well, I guess there's the reason why working geek bloodhounds don't actually wear powered propeller beanies. As ever, one tends not to think these things all the way through, off the disgruntled bat.)

  27. Aww, crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for ruining it for me, you big killjoy.

    I bet you and all your facts and logic are a real thrill at parties.

  28. Happiness is a warm puppy -m puppy -m puppy by bbsguru · · Score: 1

    I get it,
    I really do.
    The "human anti-aging" is just a smokescreen.
    The Real Reason for this is all too apparent. SMBC explains it all.

  29. Only 20 people should be allowed this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inequality just gets worse and worse doesn't it?
    At least this would stop vampire billionaires from draining blood from young volunteers

  30. The Motie Problem by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

    Eventually, you breed out all those willing and/or able to control their reproduction. (See Niven & Pournelle's Moties, who can't restrict their reproduction by much; they die unpleasantly if they don't have a baby every so often.)

  31. Dogs living forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No thanks. I can't wait for my wife's yapping little bitch of a dog to finally kick the bucket.

  32. Die if you want to. by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Your fear need not limit other people's opportunity. Die if you want to but I for one have a lot of projects to do. Another thousand years might let me make a dent in my current list. Longer life means accumulating more wisdom and knowledge.

  33. What is with Joule Unlimited, Dr. Church? by zufar · · Score: 1

    George Church is undermining scientific integrity by legitimizing questionable start-ups just so they can attract billion or two of investments with no intent to deliver.

  34. He just wants to die rich... by gweihir · · Score: 1

    ... at the regular age. Hence he promises something he cannot deliver on but which is something the people who are extremely afraid of death (pathetic wimps, the lot of them) wand desperately enough to not look closely. That will probably make him rich but will not extend his life or improve the condition of his body.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  35. Dogs? I'm already testing on my elderly parents by Btrot69 · · Score: 1

    And with excellent results !

    It is really sad to see your parents slowly turn into vegetables -- and the doctors try to tell you there is nothing your can do, or they give expensive pills that are
    barely better than placebo. BS !

    Nootropics might be the new cool thing with programmers, but they are MUCH better at bringing declining minds back to normal than they are at turning average people into geniuses.

    The problem is -- in the US -- doctors are NOT ALLOWED to talk about anything that isn't FDA approved (just ask your doctor).

    I've been giving my 80 and 90 year old parents (and now in-laws) a stack of phenylpiracetam, Alpha-GPC, DHA fish oil, etc for over a year now.

    The results are quite amazing to everyone who knows them.

    Now, I have started to test age-reversal supplements.
    I always guinea-pig myself first -- mostly to learn what to expect.
    It is good that my genetics are close, because there are genetic factors.
    It is also good that I know my parents -- they trust me and I know when to take their complaints seriously.

  36. I am offended by this unnatural experiment! by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    Everyone should know that the proper order of things is that cats come before dogs! I would accept an argument that they want to test the process out on dogs first since they're more expendable, but i will not abide them skipping over cats entirely!

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:I am offended by this unnatural experiment! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cats already have 9 lives...

    2. Re:I am offended by this unnatural experiment! by mentil · · Score: 1

      Dogs are more heavily inbred (the purebreds at least) and thus have more genetic disorders. Some of the breeds are quite expensive, as well. A cat is usually just a Tabby cat, there are few breeds people go out of their way to get, and few owners bother.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  37. Altered Carbon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure there are a great many works of fiction, mostly science fiction, that touch on this topic. However, one of my favorite and to me most plausible explorations is portrayed in a book titled Altered Carbon. Everyone has a cortical stack implanted at birth. Your consciousness can be spun up in a virtual environment or copied from body to body. Poor people typically live one lifetime, and if they're murdered and their stack is left in tact they will get a free replacement. The replacement is usually the body of someone who is spending a century or more in virtual storage serving a prison sentence.

    Meanwhile, the wealthy live forever and have offsite daily backups of their consciousness and biological clones they can jump into. They're pejoratively referred to as Meths, as in Methuselah. As would be expected, rich people living forever and continuing to amass wealth and power makes for a less than perfect world.

    Netflix made this into a TV show released in February. I'm sure plenty of people will shit on it for various reasons, but I found it to be very enjoyable and would highly recommend it.

  38. Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Millennial science is not science. Are there any real scientists left? Calling all scientists! This is such a bullshit waste of time and money, and the research that millennials refuse to read because in their minds they created everything that exists in reality themselves, is widely available. Sigh, sigh, sigh.

  39. The Right to Die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once society gets used to the idea that you don't *have* to die, it won't be long before society starts looking at you funny for actually wanting to. Then of course treating you like a criminal for trying to.

  40. So no matter what by KlomDark · · Score: 1

    If you want to live forever, you have to go to church... Either "the church" or "George Church". How fucking ironic...

    1. Re:So no matter what by mentil · · Score: 1

      You bring up a good point; this is called 'immanentizing the eschaton' in religious circles, and it could lead to interesting changes in religions. If the end-goal of following a religion is eternal life in a great place (heaven), what's the benefit if you know you can live forever on a great Earth?

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  41. This man should be killed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Abominations