Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Are Working To Eliminate Senescent Cells (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: In a lab just south of San Francisco I am looking at two blown-up images of microscope slides on a computer screen, side by side. The slides are the same cross-sections of mouse knees from a six-month-old and an 18-month-old animal. The older mouse's image has a splattering of little yellow dots, the younger barely any. That staining indicates the presence of so-called senescent cells -- "zombie cells" that are damaged and that, as a defense against cancer, have ceased to divide but are also resistant to dying. They are known to accumulate with age, as the immune system can no longer clear them, and as a result of exposure to cell-damaging agents such as radiation and chemotherapy. And they have been identified as a cause of aging in mice, at least partially responsible for most age-related diseases. Seeing the slides, it makes me worried about my own knees. "Tell us about it," says Pedro Beltran who heads the biology department at Unity Biotechnology, a 90 person-strong company trying to halt, slow or reverse age-associated diseases in humans by killing senescent cells.

Developing therapies to kill senescent cells is a burgeoning part of the wider quest to defeat aging and keep people healthier longer. Unity, which was founded in 2011, has received more than $385m in funding to date including investment from big tech names such as Amazon's Jeff Bezos and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel. It went public this May and is valued at more than $700m. Its first drug entered early clinical trials in June, aimed at treating osteoarthritis. Other startups with zombie cells in their sights include Seattle-based Oisin Biotechnologies which was founded in 2016 and has raised around $4m; Senolytic Therapeutics whose scientific development is based in Spain and which was established last September (it won't disclose its financing other than to say it has a first round, which will allow it to reach clinical trials); and Cleara Biotech, formed this June backed by $3m in funding and based in the Netherlands. In addition, Scottish company CellAge, also founded in 2016, has raised about $100,000 to date, partly through a crowdfunding campaign.
The report goes on to detail Unity's plan to kill senescent cells. Their method is to target the biological pathways senescent cells use to resist the normal death of aging cells. "The company's approach is to find small molecules (so called 'senolytics') that can do this," reports The Guardian. "But because small molecules, by their nature, can get everywhere in the body, the approach is prone to unwanted side-effects." As a result, the company has turned to localized treatment.

Meanwhile, Oisin is trying to kill all a person's zombie cells in one go. "The idea is to load the body with nanoparticles that insert a 'suicide gene' into every cell," reports The Guardian. "It only triggers if a cell has a lot of particular protein (p16) that acts as a marker of zombie cells, albeit imperfectly." It plans to test this method on late-stage cancer patients next year.

151 comments

  1. People need to die by MikeDataLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's the only way for change to happen. Imagine in people from 200 years ago were still alive and voting. We'd never progress as a society.

    "And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new."

    --
    Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    1. Re:People need to die by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 2

      To paraphrase Max Planck: "Progress is made one funeral at a time."

      --
      sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    2. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's an either-or, the ethical and more humane solution for society in that case would be to take away voting rights from 100+ year olds, not to shun the possibilities of them living longer

    3. Re: People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Strong argument: donât try saving anyone as we canât have old men and women voting ðY'

    4. Re: People need to die by MikeDataLink · · Score: 0

      Strong argument: donât try saving anyone as we canât have old men and women voting ðY'

      No one said that.

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    5. Re:People need to die by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      If it's an either-or, the ethical and more humane solution for society in that case would be to take away voting rights from 100+ year olds, not to shun the possibilities of them living longer

      Not just voting rights. Right now, death helps redistribute wealth. It's not perfect but imagine if Rockafeller never died. Instead of a charitable foundation, we would have someone likely with an almost infinite amount of wealth by now.

    6. Re:People need to die by Wycliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the only way for change to happen. Imagine in people from 200 years ago were still alive and voting. We'd never progress as a society.

      "And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new."

      If we could completely stop aging, the average life expectance would only jump to about 300. You can calculate this by extrapolating out the death rate of a 25 year old. People would eventually die from other things besides old age. This would likely be a net benefit to society. We would greatly reduce our heathcare costs and people wouldn't have to retire because they are no longer capable of working. It would likely have other effects too. People might decide to be more careful with their driving and eating habits if they knew that it was up to them how long they could live.

    7. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People will pay to be society's "senescent cells".

    8. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. I sure as hell wouldn't want to the Koch Bros to live indefinitely

    9. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      we would have someone likely with an almost infinite amount of wealth by now

      that would be pretty cool, a small tax on that one person could make everyone on the planet rich as well as fund colonies off the planet.

    10. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OK, so in exchange for letting them live longer, you want to take away their:

      voting rights
      wealth/money

      and probably:

      jobs (they'll be clogging up the employment rolls, and imagine a 300 year old Scalia or RBG)

      anything else?

      I'm sure people would still choose living (if we're talking about life as a healthy 100+ year old)

    11. Re:People need to die by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Except Rockefeller's foundation spent the money far more wisely than the government would have.

      Same for Bill Gates. His foundation's spending on nutrition and anti-malaria programs have saved millions of lives for less than the government spends on one aircraft carrier.

    12. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so in exchange for letting them live longer, you want to take away their:

      voting rights
      wealth/money

      and probably:

      jobs (they'll be clogging up the employment rolls, and imagine a 300 year old Scalia or RBG)

      I don't see where anyone suggested this.

    13. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      reading isn't your strong suit, punkin

    14. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      reading isn't your strong suit, punkin

      He/She stated a fact of the problem. He/She did not recommend a solution as you suggest. Who has reading skills problems again?

    15. Re:People need to die by dissy · · Score: 1

      No one is talking about removing the ability to die.
      We're talking about removing the ability for old age to kill us.

      A bullet to the head, as well as thousands of other ways to be killed, not only remains but then becomes even more of a thing to avoid when it will cost you hundreds of years of your life ahead instead of just a small handful.

      Then clearing out the old to make way for the new becomes a choice regarding how.
      Either you move aside and live out the rest of your long and healthy life, or refuse and are moved out of the way.

    16. Re: People need to die by AsmCoder8088 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was going to bring this up as well. Also, imagine the usefulness of a healthy 300 year old. They would have not only a unique perspective and wisdom about things but also the energy to put it to good use.

    17. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's the only way for change to happen. Imagine in people from 200 years ago were still alive and voting. We'd never progress as a society.

      "And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new."

      This is cute non-sense that you feel is funny to engage in because you don't think extending life is actually a possibility that relates to your life. Once you have cancer or Alzheimers or even just your brain, muscles and bones atrophy with age, and there is a fix available, you will not reject it on the basis that your old-fashioned thinking should not be around any more. In no other context would you be anything but horrified at a suggestion to kill off large population groups because their thinking is not as you would like. People do change their minds and the longer-term perspective and accumulated competence of people living for, say, 200 years will do a lot of good. If that slows down progress and makes us all more responsible, then so be it, we would then all have time to wait that out, though I'm fairly sure it will make for faster progress.

    18. Re:People need to die by Courageous · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Accidental death, suicide, and homicide kill 36,726 annually. In that age group, roughly 43M are alive. That 1:1171 or so chance of dying from those causes by my calculation.

    19. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so let's develop the technology, but make it a felony to receive the treatment.

      No actual prison time involved, just... instant loss of voting rights.

    20. Re: People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. People progress because they adapt to a changing world. As you age you literally lose the mental plasticity required to asymilate new information and change your behavior. Slowing down or preventing these negative age-related changes wouldn't leave us with an intreched class of 'stubborn old people', quite the opposite.

    21. Re: People need to die by mrbester · · Score: 5, Funny

      They'll probably be maintaining COBOL and FORTRAN systems.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    22. Re: People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, imagine a person who grew up in the early 1700's, with values of that era (slavery would be OK, no women's rights, etc.).

      So quick to adapt to new technology as well.

    23. Re:People need to die by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People need to die. It's the only way for change to happen. Imagine in people from 200 years ago were still alive and voting. We'd never progress as a society.

      What a vile and disgusting statement, false in every regard. What makes you think that people don't get wiser as they get older? What makes you think change in society, which you call progress, will be an improvement? Judging from the proclamations of those young people making the most noise in politics today, progress is torturing all males to death and giving 3-year-olds the vote. There's no limit to human stupidity, and most of it comes from the immature.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    24. Re: People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is right err in this thread. Idiot. What rights are taken away simply for being old is THE topic of this thread. Omg you are so stupid.

    25. Re: People need to die by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

      Your view of history is quite limited. Abolitionists existed in 1700, and women were not entirely without rights - even compared to today in Muslim countries.

      Someone 300 years old could have a substantial knowledge of trends of history, and be able to cogently point out bad ideas that keep reappearing.

      And, of course, you assume that people never learn.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    26. Re: People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and obviously they could never change. You are a moron.

      Trivial example: when I was born there were no cell phones or home computers. Today my income is based on mastering computer technology. But, no, because we did not have either when I was younger I could not possibly learn those technologies. YOU ARE A BLAZINGLY STUPID PERSON! Please please please please never breed or vote or drive!

    27. Re:People need to die by fermion · · Score: 2
      Just imagine if the slavers were still in control of the US...

      But my real concern is that we don't really know what the side effects of this are. We keep trying to medicate all the 'negative' aspects of our lives, and it keeps biting us in the ass. We want everyone to be happy, and have a 'normal' psychological profile, and what we get it an opioid epidemic that is killing people. We are relative certain the appendix is vestigial, and removing it is of no great significance, but the preponderance of caution that defines medicine says that maybe we should treat appendicitis as it could be a repository for important bacteria.

      Who know what the side effects of eliminating these cells are going to be. They may not appear for generations. We thought that aggressive use of antibiotics and routine use of antibacterials would be a good idea, until we bred the superbugs that one day could eliminate us.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    28. Re:People need to die by Tapewolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the only way for change to happen. Imagine in people from 200 years ago were still alive and voting. We'd never progress as a society.

      "And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new."

      It also causes valuable lessons to be lost.The people who experienced Hiroshima and it's after-effects are better placed to fight against it happening again than people who just read about it as bored schoolchildren. It becomes easier to deny the holocaust when the survivors are dead of old age. And regulations put in place after the Great Depression were swept away by later generations who considered them obsolete relics, until the consequences became apparent in 2008.

    29. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. How we play the game of civilization will need to be adapted to the new reality. Stop living in fear.

    30. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See: Naturalistic Fallacy.

    31. Re:People need to die by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is always safe to assume that socialists, communists, fascists and other types of collectivists hate individuals as they espouse their love to humanity as a whole.

      AFAIC individuals matter while the collective does not. I am all for infinite life and completely against aging and dying from so called 'natural causes'. However anybody is and should be free to terminate their own existence if they so choose. It would be interesting to see how many collectivists would off themselves for the sake of their vision of 'progress'.

    32. Re: People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you call progress is generational rebellion. Look at the Greatest Generation, then the Baby Boomers, then the Gen Xers and the millennials. Each generation has seen their children grow up embracing very different values. Societal progress is not a linear path, but more of a pendulum swinging back and forth.

    33. Re: People need to die by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who know what the side effects of eliminating these cells are going to be.

      Long life.

      They may not appear for generations. We thought that aggressive use of antibiotics and routine use of antibacterials would be a good idea

      They are. We live longer, healthier lives than ever in human history. All thanks to those good ideas.

      until we bred the superbugs that one day could eliminate us.

      We didn't breed "superbugs". Life evolved, as it always does. The phrase "superbug" is fearmongering nonsense meant to attract attiontion. Every disease which we couldn't fight in the past was a "superbug". Measles. Polio. Smallpox. The plague. They killed and maimed incredible numbers of people and we had no defense against them. Today Ebola is one of the most potentially harmful diseases on the planet, and it has absolutely nothing to do with antibiotics or antibacterials.

        I've never understood the mindset of the horribly confused people who seem to believe that we shouldn't bother fighting diseases or pests because new ones will evolve. That's like suggesting that we shouldn't eat today because we'll just be hungry again tomorrow.

    34. Re:People need to die by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Because nobody ever gained experience and wisdom as they age.

    35. Re: People need to die by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Abolitionists existed in 1700, and women were not entirely without rights

      Your date is a bit off. The first attempts to end slavery in the British-american colonies came from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and some of their contemporaries. So basically 1770s.

      - Many U.S. States when they declared independence in 1776, also allowed women to vote, same as men did. Sadly that equal suffrage was later repealed in the 1810s and 1820s. Every time there's a revolution, there's also a backlash a few years later to "undo" what the revolutionaries accomplished :-(

      - Blacks in the North continued to have the right to vote, and be treated as equals under the law.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    36. Re:People need to die by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Informative

      His foundation pays for research that leads to patents on treatments that it then collects royalties on. That's the kind of 'help' his foundation does.

      States eradicated smallpox a couple decades ago just fine.

    37. Re: People need to die by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      OK, I'd rather take the risk of not dying, thanks. Your idea is an intuition, not based in fact. It is easily countered by the fact that if our most skillful people didn't keep dying, progress would happen much quicker.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    38. Re: People need to die by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Do a web search. Quaker abolitionists were around before Jefferson was born.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    39. Re: People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smart people on slashdot? Where are they? because no one has yet mentioned how extending lifespan explodes world population. You heard population was stabilizing? Those estimates used current lifespan estimates not extended estimates.

    40. Re:People need to die by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 0

      You first, bub.

      If I was alive for 200 years, I guarantee I'd still have a mind that was growing and wouldn't be living in the 200 years ago past.

      There's no afterlife. There's no god. I want to live as long as I can.

      I like it here.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    41. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You go first.

    42. Re: People need to die by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      Easy: cure for aging = make them infertile too.

    43. Re:People need to die by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      His foundation pays for research that leads to patents on treatments that it then collects royalties on.

      Can you back this up with a citation or example?

      States eradicated smallpox a couple decades ago just fine.

      The WHO eliminated smallpox. The WHO is now trying to eliminate malaria ... by working closely with the Gates Foundation.

    44. Re: People need to die by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Well, somebody has to. Don't tell me you're going to do it.

    45. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Untrue.

      You're basis this on the fact that as people age, their methods of thought, their ideas "fossilize". But there are many that this does not happen to. And regardless?

      That process is part of the *aging* process.

      The brain continues to grow until almost 30 in males, and 25 or so in females. (Recall, women enter puberty earlier than men.. thus "finish" sooner). If one were to reverse the aging process.. or, halt it at a certain point?

      There is zero reason to believe that the brain would not continue to behave as a young brain would.

      There is no reason at all -- none, to shy away from immortality. After all, we are currently on the path to extinction, unless we reverse whatever is happening to us.

      Think about it -- the average birth rate is barely 1 per 2 persons in Western society. And in fact? It's barely 1 in any industrialized part of the planet. That includes wildly divergent cultures, like Japan's.

      So what's happening is that some aspect of modern life -- plastic, cell phone usage, being indoors all the time, a lack of boredom and "quiet moments" that induce bored fucking, whatever the case? It's happening to ALL cultures with decades of primarily urban living.

      We're going extinct. Look at extinction graphs of collapsing populations. Quite stunning how everything seems "fine", then there is a bit of a collapse, then BAM! Just massive reduction in population.

      Now consider this... taking 25 years as a "generation"? In 100 years, you go from 8 billion -> 4 -> 2 -> 1, and then? Yeah... worse.

      And that's considering that the number of 1 holds static, and doesn't collapse further. Think plague. War.

      More depressing, is that modern science requires a certain level of specialization to resolve complex issues. Many that theorized that if numbers fall below a certain level? There won't be enough expert/genuis level people in certain sub-fields of specialization, to continue research in those areas.

      So if it is plastic? Something environmental? Welp... maybe if our population falls to far, we won't have the ability to resolve the issue. And let's say it is plastic. It's *everywhere*. In the oceans, on the land, it's even in salt (a requirement!) that most of the world eats, eg sea-salt. And real plastic takes centuries to break down.

      Imagine our population falls, and even worse as plastic decays, it leeches into the topsoil. Now you're left with a "soft" extinction, where slowly everything dwindles and dies.

      And you sir? YOU? Here you are prattling on about our only save ... immortality!!!!

    46. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A secondary reply... imagine the mind young, malleable, growing, but ALSO with wisdom.

      Right now, we seem to have one or the other. We have youth, and its fresh look at the world -- and we have age, with its knowledge of history and so forth.

      To give you an example, I've learned SO MUCH HISTORY since I've left school. So much of everything else too, but my point is that with history it's just a MASSIVE field for obvious reasons. And you learn of this, as time passes, and it *does* matter.

      But even "current history" helps so much. When you've seen 10 or so election cycles? You tend to see the same tricks. The same political lies. The same way to trick the voter, to get into office... and it doesn't matter much what party, or what country, you're talking about.

      An educated, wizened voter would be one of the outcomes of immortality. And as well, a voter that knows what projects *seem* to really work for a government to handle, and what for private enterprise. Some things NEED to be managed by the public (the government) and some things really should not be.

      If you've lived 200 years, and lived in 20 countries and governments, and seen incredible technological change.. and STILL see patterns in what and how people can manage certain problems, certain issues... it might be exceptionally advantageous.

      And maybe... just maybe... we'll finally be able to buy a car without getting scammed by the dealership.

    47. Re:People need to die by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that people don't get wiser as they get older?

      People.

      Judging from the proclamations of those young people making the most noise in politics today, progress is torturing all males to death and giving 3-year-olds the vote.

      Out of interest, are you old?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    48. Re:People need to die by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      It's the only way for change to happen.

      They have things called education and learning. And you don't have to go back 200 years. "Gay marriage" was socially unacceptable (by more than half the populous), only 10 year ago, in the USA. And forget about it in the middle east.

      If you think old people are inherently backwards and shouldn't vote, then you're RAGINGLY ageist.

      Consider how many resources it takes to raise a surgeon from birth through all that schooling, to actually performing surgery by (on average) age 36.8. And then they retire by 65. Hopefully. Physical skills decline with age and there are papers about this. 37 years to pop a surgeon, for 27 years of actually doing the job. If that. Imagine if Einstein and Bohr were still alive. Enrico Fermi, Oppenheimer, Richard Feynman.... ok, Feynman went a little nuts at the end. But the point stands that death sucks. It's a tragedy and loss for society.

      I can't help but view anyone arguing in favor of death as some sort of monster. Seriously? Pro-Death?

    49. Re:People need to die by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      but imagine if Rockafeller never died.

      I'm seeing a LOOOOT more peopel voting for an estate tax, a higher income tax, and a stronger desire for a moderate amount of inflation.

      Remember, we live in a democracy. If everyone imagines a horror scenario of the old rich, we can vote on solutions. Case in point, the age of robber-baron industrialists was so bad for so many people we had a political uprising and unions formed.

      Also, disenfranchisement based on age is some straight up "Logan's Run" level of WTF.

    50. Re:People need to die by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      "Eugenics

      Beginning in 1930 the Rockefeller Foundation provided financial support to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics,[37] which later inspired and conducted eugenics experiments in the Third Reich."

      Wow. Such wisdom.

      But that's a low blow. The guy really did donate a lot of money that went on to do a lot of good stuff. And all it took was the blood, sweat, tears, anguish, suffering, death, and abuse of the entire working class. The way in which he got his billions was questionable at best and damnably horrific at worst. And while Bill Gates is now giving away his money, we all remember what he pulled to get those fortunes.

    51. Re:People need to die by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Who know what the side effects of eliminating these cells are going to be.

      Well, just from the summary I'd say if you eat the wrong foods, all the rest of the cells in your body might self-destruct.

    52. Re: People need to die by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I haven't died yet, and I don't intend to start. I wouldn't jump off a bridge just because lots of other people had done it.

    53. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the only way for change to happen. Imagine in people from 200 years ago were still alive and voting. We'd never progress as a society.

      By that logic, imagine how much *more* progress society could make if people die at 40?

      How about 30? Or 20?

      Yeah, the *entire world* filled with teenagers, the society will progress at Internet time!

    54. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are now only one step away from becoming Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler.

      "People need to die for change"

      Welcoming huge masses of people dying or actively pursuing it is a small step. And when we're in medical fields, "letting someone die" and "killing someone" are very close.

      I cannot think of anything that sounds more horrible than that.

    55. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except people don't want to die. Not today. They don't want to suffer and they don't want their loved ones to suffer, become frail and die. Should we force them? what is your proposed strategy? should we force people to become ill and die or should we kill them while they are healthy?

      Funny thing is that we also try to stop people from killing themselves when they choose so. It is assumed that someone willing to take his own life is mentally ill.

    56. Re:People need to die by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      but imagine if Rockafeller never died.

      I'm seeing a LOOOOT more peopel voting for an estate tax, a higher income tax, and a stronger desire for a moderate amount of inflation.

      An estate tax doesn't work if you never die and income taxes hurt working people more than the already rich. Inflation helps a little but what we would really need would be an asset tax instead of an income tax. It's really what we need now. The closest we have to an asset tax is property tax and capital gain tax but both of those are lower than an income tax. Basically, the current system is designed to allow the rich to keep their money once they get it and for it to be harder for others to become rich.

    57. Re:People need to die by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Except Rockefeller's foundation spent the money far more wisely than the government would have.

      Same for Bill Gates. His foundation's spending on nutrition and anti-malaria programs have saved millions of lives for less than the government spends on one aircraft carrier.

      My point is that the Rockefeller foundation and likely even the Bill Gates foundation wouldn't even exist if they didn't expect to die.

    58. Re: People need to die by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Yes, imagine a person who grew up in the early 1700's, with values of that era (slavery would be OK, no women's rights, etc.).

      So quick to adapt to new technology as well.

      Society can change faster than a generation. Look at gay marriage. Less than 10 years ago, California voted to not allow gay marriage and both Obama and Clinton are on record being against gay marriage. As far as adapting to new technology, some of that is likely because of the aging process too. Older people take longer to learn and just slow down both physically and mentally. Stopping aging would likely help this as well.

    59. Re:People need to die by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Accidental death, suicide, and homicide kill 36,726 annually. In that age group, roughly 43M are alive. That 1:1171 or so chance of dying from those causes by my calculation.

      But that doesn't mean that you live to 1171, it means that on average everyone is dead by approximately age 1171. Based on those numbers, 50% should still be dead by about age 500 and chances are that the first life extensions will likely not be perfect and there will be other gotchas that would still get you long before that (like heart attacks)

    60. Re: People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today Ebola is one of the most potentially harmful diseases on the planet, and it has absolutely nothing to do with antibiotics or antibacterials.

      It isn't really. For most people Ebola isn't a concern, influenza kills a lot more people, so is much more harmful.

      Sure, Ebola is a lot worse to be infected with, but that is mitigated by the much lower risk of actually getting it.

    61. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > people wouldn't have to retire because they are no longer capable of working.

      Maybe it's just me, but my goal in life has never been to retire only when I'm no longer capable of working.

    62. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People may become set in their ways exactly becase of the impact of aging - brain aging to be more exact. Thus, if science manages to defeat aging, and thereby the brain remains biologically youthful, people may no longer become averse to change and incapable of adaption depite being of an advanced chronological age.

    63. Re:People need to die by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I can't argue against Rockefeller, but Gates definitely was all about bandaiding issues and funneling more money into his personal slush fund, err, Gates Foundation. Recall the laser mosquito elimination system? There's quite a few things they could do differently that would significantly help the targeted populations instead of keeping them at status quo, at best.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    64. Re:People need to die by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      An estate tax doesn't affect the obscenely rich, and never has. Look at Trump, et al. There's many ways around estate taxes for those with significant wealth. In fact, estate taxes are such a non-issue that they probably should be converted into other sorts of taxes that would affect these alternate wealth transfer options.

      As for the current system, it's been co-opted by the rich and corporations to offload their fair share as much as possible onto others. It was never about keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. Recall that the income tax originally started as a tax on the top 10% of income earners. Had the rewrites of tax law all been indexed to CPI, roughly 75% of us would never pay income tax.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    65. Re:People need to die by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The last study I saw on this made the assumptions that the life age of the body would be set between 23 and 28. Based on the activities people do at that life age, the average expected lifespan was 220 IIRC. That was based on people having the energy and lifestyles that would make them more active and more likely to engage in activities and stupidities that would end in disaster, just to keep the interest in living higher.

      On the top side, something like 1% of the population would make it to 1000, so the old geezer concept would definitely still apply but would possibly be more rare.

      Granted, there's a lot of assumptions in that study, but given that the whole thing is hypothetical it's as good a set as any other.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    66. Re:People need to die by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      What makes you think that people don't get wiser as they get older?

      "Wiser" is too vague to be a useful metric. We should look at the way they tend to vote, since that was the issue cited as holding back progress.

      While not all older people are conservative, there is a clear trend towards conservatism as people age. It's not clear to me that the trend is because they are "wiser". For example, at the time same-sex marriage become legal in many countries there was still a majority of over 65s opposed to it. If their numbers had swelled due to people living to 200 then it might have been another century or more until gay people got that right.

      It seems that the reasons cited are things like religion and general disgust at homosexuality, neither of which seems very wise. But even if for the same of argument we say that it was a wise position to take, the statement was that they will hold back progression which is clearly true in this example.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    67. Re:People need to die by strikethree · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What a vile and disgusting statement, false in every regard.

      Well, that is one way to look at it.

      What makes you think change in society, which you call progress, will be an improvement?

      There is no way to tell ahead of time whether or not there will be an "improvement"; however, like Evolution itself, over enough time, things seem to "advance".

      As a person who is subject to dying and not terribly far away from it, I support the idea of natural death. It causes change. There are some Golden Ages which ended because of death and that seems to be a shame; however, the majority of time, it has been self serving kings and emperors who have made everyone's lives miserable and it is good that things changed.

      I think there is a quote by Max Planck (not going to verify because it really doesn't matter WHO said it) that goes something like this: The progress of Science advances one death at a time. Once a scientist has found a "truth", they tend to enforce that truth far beyond the applicability of that truth. Could you imagine still "believing" in the Niels Bohr model of the atom?

      And yet another strangely prophetic captcha: stings

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    68. Re:People need to die by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Your overly-trite response based on discussing the effects on an individual. The OP's discussing the effects on society as a whole.

      People do change their minds and the longer-term perspective and accumulated competence of people living for, say, 200 years will do a lot of good

      Well, I'm looking at the Boomer generation and what they are insisting society must do. Currently it features whining about very slight harm done to powerful rapists, obsession over who is sitting in the next stall in the bathroom, rich people must be given more money, housing supply must be massively limited to increase their own wealth, and insisting they should get to destroy the ecosystem so their lifestyle doesn't change in the slightest.

      So, not seeing a whole lot of reason to keep them around for their "wisdom". Nor any "responsibility". Heck, can't even get them to acknowledge they have ever done anything wrong.

    69. Re:People need to die by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      What a vile and disgusting statement, false in every regard. What makes you think that people don't get wiser as they get older?

      The entirety of history.

      What makes you think change in society, which you call progress, will be an improvement?

      Almost the entirety of history. It's around 70/30.

      Judging from the proclamations of those young people making the most noise in politics today, progress is torturing all males to death and giving 3-year-olds the vote.

      Is this massive pile of stupid you are vomiting forth supposed to be "wisdom"?

    70. Re:People need to die by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      We keep trying to medicate all the 'negative' aspects of our lives, and it keeps biting us in the ass

      [Citation Required]. Specifically that the "biting us in the ass" part happens more often than positive results.

      We want everyone to be happy, and have a 'normal' psychological profile, and what we get it an opioid epidemic that is killing people

      [Citation Required]. Specifically, that the people dying of drug overdoses received psychological treatment or other evidence that they were not "normal".

      What happens is we make people have incredibly shitty lives with no future so that a very small number of people get extremely rich. The "normal" response to that is despair and escapism, which frequently manifests itself as drug use.

      We are relative certain the appendix is vestigial, and removing it is of no great significance, but the preponderance of caution that defines medicine says that maybe we should treat appendicitis as it could be a repository for important bacteria.

      .....are you trying to claim we routinely remove someone's appendix "just because"? Sepsis ain't a good time, yo.

      Who know what the side effects of eliminating these cells are going to be.

      The scientists studying the treatment will.

      They may not appear for generations

      .....how exactly is a treatment given to an individual, almost always after they're beyond reproductive age, going to pass to one new generation, much less several?

      We thought that aggressive use of antibiotics and routine use of antibacterials would be a good idea, until we bred the superbugs that one day could eliminate us.

      No, we thought we had a good tool to use to treat some diseases, and then people started using that tool outside those diseases. We knew we were creating antibiotic resistance. Many people without medical training just didn't care. That isn't the fault of the drug or the treatment, it's the fault of those people.

      Also, you're completely disregarding the benefit to the people who were treated with those drugs. Bacterial diseases went from the primary killers of humans to killing a very small number of people. And still killing a very small number of people.

      Stop letting fear rule your life.

    71. Re:People need to die by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Worse: why waste any time on this when climate change is being ignored, and we're well on the way to a slow extinction-level event for us anyway? Unless hearts and minds of 7,000,000,000 people are all changed more or less simultaneously, nothing is going to save us.

    72. Re:People need to die by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It's the only way for change to happen. Imagine in people from 200 years ago were still alive and voting. We'd never progress as a society.

      "And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new."

      First of all we'd be up to 50 billion by now.

      Secondly, people voting is not a problem. That's amenable to persuasion (as long as you aren't a dick about it, which is, sadly, what most preaching to the choir politics is, e.g. the entire Kavanaugh thing most recently). People need to discover a better way on their own so they don't feel attacked and get defensive.

      Anyway, the real problem is dictatorship. With the greatest psychopathic charismatics in history (the ability to lie convincingly is key) running around, and their internal security thugs and their well-to-do elites humanity could be in for a long, long slog.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    73. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What makes you think change in society, which you call progress, will be an improvement?"
      Go read The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Stephen Pinker, or watch the TED talk summary.

    74. Re:People need to die by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Accidental death, suicide, and homicide kill 36,726 annually. In that age group, roughly 43M are alive. That 1:1171 or so chance of dying from those causes by my calculation.

      The important point isn't whether it's 300 or 1000 years, it's that it's vastly limited. Some will make it to 20,000 (roughly Gandalf's "300 lifetimes") by luck and timid living.

      Unlike age 70, say, the average here doesn't fall off a rock. This is more like a half life average, so if it is 300 years, half will be dead, but 1/4 will still be alive in 600 years, and 1/8 in 900 years, and 1/16 in 1200 years.

      Not likely anyone would live to 21,000 (1 in 2^^70) but if 1000 is half life, many thousands would.

      Anyway growth rate outweighs as a numeric problem as a 1% growth rate ends up having more than the number of molecules in the universe in 17,000 years.

      Good luck solving that through some kind of quantum storage brain uploads or expansion of the matter and energy of the universe.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    75. Re:People need to die by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Yep. Fucked that one up. I meant asset tax. The cludge of property tax, auto tax, you-own-a-Rembrant-you-can-pay-a-taxes also do essentially the same thing. There's not like... a way to correlate them with income tax.

    76. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad assumption that they'd continue to behave the way they did at, say, 25. You learn as the years go by. Hopefully your behavior changes to reflect that greater wisdom.

    77. Re:People need to die by urusan · · Score: 1

      If you want some solid evidence that you don't need to clear out the past generations to progress a cause, consider how fast recent social shifts have occurred. From 2004-2017, opposition to gay marriage in the US went from 60% to 32% (http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/). The US didn't lose 28% of its population in 13 years, it lost around 10.9% of its population in that time frame (calculated from this https://tradingeconomics.com/u...). Even assuming that every old person was in opposition, there's still at least a 17% shift in public opinion that has nothing to do with the elderly dying out. While it is true that the slower demographic trend helped reduce opposition to gay marriage, the real change has been driven by people changing their minds.

      If you break down the numbers further (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States), you'll also see that which US state a person is in (or their political ideology) are better indicators than just age (although age is still a good indicator). States in the northeast and on the west coast have overwhelming support for this issue, while states in the midwest and southeast are on the fence about it, even though none of these states have a serious age skew. Democratic Silent Generation individuals are less likely to oppose gay marriage than their Republican Millennial Generation counterparts. Changing public opinions come from changing people's minds, not removing old people with outdated opinions that they refuse to change.

      It's also quite possible that healthy old people would actually be more mentally flexible than today's crippled old people. By reducing the damage of aging to the brain, very old people would likely not get so set in their ways. In addition, a lot of very old people today are basically just waiting around to die, instead of interacting with the mainstream society, so this reduces the pressure to change they would normally have applied to them. As long as they can hole up in their paid-off home and live off their retirement money and/or social security and/or have their family care for them, what do they care what other people think? However, if they were healthy then they'd almost certainly prefer to get out and interact (or at least do other activities that end up with frequent social interaction), leading to them changing their minds to keep up and fit in.

      People from hundreds of years ago who were kept alive and well by science would have eventually shifted their opinions to match the prevailing social climate, and today they wouldn't really be that different from the current population, other than having seen more history firsthand (well, and having had hundreds of years to accumulate wealth...I don't think it'd really have that big an impact on social progress for a variety of reasons, after all it's not like wealthy and powerful people are young today, and the wealthy very old folks would be massively outgunned by wealthy younger old folks from more recent generations that had been oppressed by the oldest folks in the past, and pretty much everyone alive today would have lived through past periods of extreme inequality and instability and realize that working together to create a relatively equitable and well functioning system is much better for all than the current dysfunctional short-range thinking winner-takes-all system (meanwhile, the current winner takes all system makes perfect sense for the powerful when they have limited lifespans and life is relatively cheap, as they need to get everything now while the getting is good)).

      Personally, I believe the concept of "progress", especially social progress, is a modern myth. Various situations get better and worse, social fashions change, but humans are still the same humans they've always been.

      The idea of progress assumes there's some sort of perfect state that we're moving towards, but I

    78. Re:People need to die by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      I would say the death rate of a 40 year old would be a better number to use. You have mostly stopped doing stupid crap, you're mostly done with children, but you also are starting to see health related stuff like smoking, heart disease, diabetes, etc... Stopping aging likely wouldn't make all the wear/tear on the body stuff magically disappear. It would take additional breakthrus to be able to reverse all the wear/tear issues. Heart disease is already the number one killer and would likely remain so even if we stopped the primary causes of aging.

    79. Re:People need to die by urusan · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Niels Bohr didn't believe in the Niels Bohr model of the atom late in his life.

    80. Re:People need to die by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The study actually assumed being able to control all age related wear and tear diseases. To answer the AC, it also assumes implicitly that 2 factors increase the risk taking behavior, that boredom coupled with youthful energy drives activity and that the mix of youthful hormones and enzymes affect brain activity. IOW, you don't ever see 40, you'll think, feel, and act like a mid-20s person.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    81. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same for Bill Gates. His foundation's spending on nutrition and anti-malaria programs have saved millions of lives for less than the government spends on one aircraft carrier.

      Something he had the option to do - because his government has enough aircraft carriers.

    82. Re: People need to die by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      Do a web search. Quaker abolitionists were around before Jefferson was born.

      And some of themwere even vegans.

      (I'm not myself, but it is interesting to see what people think are "modern ideas"...)

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    83. Re:People need to die by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Another sucker fell for the "robber-baron" lie. So common I can't be surprised, only disappointed.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    84. Re:People need to die by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      "Half life" thought of like radioactivity is not now, and probably never will be, a valid way of thinking about animals. Animals, in the absence of disease, predation, starvation, etc. tend to mostly live to more than half of a maximum life span, after which the death rate increases greatly until everyone is dead at the maximum life span. Experiments that increase a species' maximum life span (there are a few such experiments) still show the same sort of survival versus time curve, even if the point at which die-offs start to happen becomes a different portion of the maximum life span. Exponential decay in the portion of animals still alive does not occur.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    85. Re:People need to die by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Although heart disease may remain the number one killer, much heart disease can be either prevented or delayed. Except for heart defects present at birth (like malformed valves), most heart problems stem from bad nutrition and inadequate exercise. Fixing the "primary causes of aging" also prevents or delays most heart disease.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    86. Re:People need to die by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Have you listen to the news recently, where one shrill "feminist" declared that men should be killed, castrated, and their genitals fed to pigs?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    87. Re:People need to die by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Change isn't always improvement. Look at the Russian and Chinese communist revolutions.

      I agree that on balance the trend is improvement. It's just not always the case.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    88. Re: People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the word "potentially" is in there.

    89. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand where you are coming from. However, this doesn't justify killing 100,000 people every day.

      OTOH, imagine what humanity can achieve if people can live healthy lives up to 80, 100, 200 years. Every problem has solutions, and I don't think "people need to die" is the best one.

    90. Re:People need to die by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      ...natural death. It causes change. [for example] self serving kings and emperors who have made everyone's lives miserable and it is good that things changed.

      So if bots become sentient, should we terminate them after X years to avoid getting stuck in a rut?

      Similarly, should we toss Linux after X years and start over with a new OS?

      You might say, "but we can change and improve those things". If that's the case, then would you change your mind about human death if we could improve individual humans?

    91. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the only way for change to happen. Imagine in people from 200 years ago were still alive and voting. We'd never progress as a society.

      Republicans want the 1800's back, so we have that problem now. (Except they didn't have Corporate Personhood back then. They just think it existed back then, or should have, thanks to clever lobbying.)

    92. Re:People need to die by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Tell that to someone whose grandfather didn't bleed in the fight. You'll get better mileage out of that baseless propaganda. But go on, tell us, why is it a lie. Lay it out. I'm sure you have a rational thought buried somewhere.

    93. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am going to do 2 comments in one since the other discussion has been archived already. First comment is in reply to:

      I'm not sure there's a universal "machine language" among all animals or even humans. People seem to think differently (not intended to be an Apple slogan joke).

      I suspect there are principles that are required to start any "advanced" thinking. Something like how electrons, neutrons, and protons all combine together to make an atom and then atoms combine together to make molecules and how molecules combine to make interesting materials, etc. Human thought would be above the "materials" phase, rather like human bodies are above the "materials" phase. The, obviously, first principle would be: exists or not exists. In computer language, like a one and a zero.

      Clearly, at the level of human intelligence, there is PLENTY of room for differing opinions. There is even room enough for entirely different modes of thought at the human level.

      TL;DR, What I am talking about is the basis for ANY type of intelligence. Getting it to a complex enough level to mimic human thought is likely more than a single lifetime of work.

      Comment on your current comment:

      So if bots become sentient, should we terminate them after X years to avoid getting stuck in a rut?

      Maybe. Hopefully, we could design around that "being right combined with ego" thing.

      Similarly, should we toss Linux after X years and start over with a new OS?

      This is not equivalent. Linux is a tool, not an intelligence.

      You might say, "but we can change and improve those things". If that's the case, then would you change your mind about human death if we could improve individual humans?

      See my comment on your first quoted comment. ;)

      I would also like to add that "improvement" is not the immediate goal. "Improvement" only occurs after many iterations of changes, some good, some bad. Or, to quote someone's signature here on Slashdot, "fitness is an ex post facto determination".

      Oops. Wrote all of this without logging in. Meh. This is still strikethree.

    94. Re:People need to die by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      What I am talking about is the basis for ANY type of intelligence. Getting it to a complex enough level to mimic human thought is likely more than a single lifetime of work.

      We don't really know. Maybe somebody will find a relatively simple "magic formula" for a universal intelligence that mostly self-learns. I kind of doubt it, but we can only fuzzily guess at this stage.

      This is not equivalent. Linux is a tool, not an intelligence.

      When you are measuring beings by their utility, then they are essentially being treated as the same thing. If you want to terminate "old" leaders* in order to improve society, then you are evaluating leaders on their utility to society. That is a "tool" perspective.

      * Perhaps by refusing to "fix" them

    95. Re:People need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is always safe to assume that socialists, communists, fascists and other types of collectivists hate individuals as they espouse their love to humanity as a whole.

      one, you're wrong on most of those. two, you are one of the biggest fascists on slashdot so if your statement was correct you should also hate individuals.
       
       

      However anybody is and should be free to terminate their own existence if they so choose

      that seems to be more of an argument for you indeed being a fascist then by your own statement above. thank you for the clarification.

      congrats though on managing to get this recruiting message for your cult moderated up to 0. too bad your lord and savior doesn't read slashdot; do you have a cardinal or some other equivalent person in the organization you can report your success to? surely they must be proud of that.

  2. Don't worry .. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

    "zombie cells" ... have ceased to divide but are also resistant to dying.

    Init will take care of them eventually.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  3. Human "foresight" by Empiric · · Score: 2

    Spoiler alert: You die anyway.

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    1. Re:Human "foresight" by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Nihilistic angst is paralyzing. The rest of us will live the best lives possible.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Human "foresight" by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Medicine is a history of doctors and scientists facing up to Death, raising their middle finger towards the reaper and declaring, "Not today!"

    3. Re:Human "foresight" by Empiric · · Score: 1

      No, I just went ahead and solved the issue with an approach that works.

      Don't assume your context is everyone's. That's epistemologically invalid.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    4. Re:Human "foresight" by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Can I talk to them now?

      Wait, schedule's a bit busy. Line one up for me to talk to 120 years from now. Of the ones that are left as of right now, I mean.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    5. Re:Human "foresight" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet for the vast majority of history, the vast majority of the treatments they prescribed either had no efficacy or actively hastened death.

      Even today, the population of centenarians is still vanishingly small compared to the population in general, and the chance of death by 115 is essentially 100%

      And that's with 150 years of actually efficacious scientific medicine, the bulk of whose benefits have, from a demographic perspective, benefited the very young far more than the very old.

    6. Re:Human "foresight" by ChrisMaple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difficult problems we solve first. The impossible takes a little longer.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    7. Re:Human "foresight" by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      What issue did you solve, exactly? As far as I can tell you just walked in, shit on the very suggestion of a solution, then declared yourself triumphant. Please explain to me how your approach "works" as anything other than a trolling tactic?

    8. Re:Human "foresight" by jools33 · · Score: 1

      Well not entirely, about 200 years ago many doctors would prescribe tincture of mercury for very many ailments, and so medicine also has a history of giving bad advice leading to shortened lifespans.

    9. Re:Human "foresight" by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Nothing, really? You've got nothing to respond with aside from the deafening silence? Sock puppet mod points do not an argument make. So far you've failed to convince me you have a coherent thought process.

  4. Re: Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or would we be better served to fight child abuse

  5. Die zombie, die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally an effective way to kill those zombies.

    Hopefully it is better than using a chainsaw.

  6. Oh, so this is how we destroy ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nanoparticles. That insert a 'suicide gene' into every cell at once. But rely on them having a zombie marker. Yes. This all sounds just fine.

    1. Re: Oh, so this is how we destroy ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a research plan yes, for actual medicine no. P16 happens to do a lot more than just 'mark' 'zombie cells'. You need it for wound repair for one.

  7. I've seen this movie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen this movie before! It ends with the population being turned into zombies, or vampires. I can't really recall which, maybe it was zombie vampires.

    In reality though for all of you who believe that 80 ought to be enough years for anybody, there is literally no reason we HAVE to die. It is possible to live, if not forever, at least so long that suicide becomes the only thing we have yet to experience.

    Trees live for thousands of years, turtles live for hundreds for years. This "death" thing was evolved to allow life to continue even in the face of severe damage. But we are rapidly approaching a point where man made machines will be able to quickly and easily repair all the damage inside a cell and effectively give that cell immortality. Imagine if this were placed into stem cells and embryonic cells.

    We would evolve a race for whom death is merely a tale told to scare young children.

  8. I used to be for life extension by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but then I realized it would mean creimer would never go away

  9. Re: Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The only cure for AIDS is to avoid the SIN of homosexuality"

    Converting to heterosexuality doesn't cure aids, and you don't have to be homosexual to get aids.

  10. Hitler needs to die by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    And the first person to undergo this life extension will be...Hitler.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:Hitler needs to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hitler didn't die of old age.

  11. suicide solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oisin is trying to kill all a person's zombie cells in one go.. what could possibly go wrong?

  12. Scientists Are Working To Eliminate Senescent Cell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30007266
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3005548/
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5009497/
    http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/10/7/1161
    https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-drug/def/cannabidiol

    Cannabidiol has been shown time and again to propagate cellular apoptosis in unhealthy cells.

    Perhaps ignoring information based on a cultural bias demonstrates a lingering social cell which is quite possibly tumorous to the well-being of our collective society.

  13. It's a trap! by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

    How do we know senescent cells don't play some other important role?

    So many times we think something is 'bad', when it's actually quite helpful (and a reason it evolved to that point). Let's sterilize everything - oh wait, now our immune function is compromised and pathogens get stronger. Lactic acid is why muscles hurt and stop - oh wait, it's actually fuel for muscles and transports out the actual 'bad stuff'.

    Maybe they're genuinely bad, useless cells...but it seems more often than not this is the wrong way to think about it.

    1. Re:It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well we do know that they have bad affects that can lead to disease...this is an easy risk benefit calculation. There's no reason to believe that any such hidden good affect would be very large and better to have left alone than to have cleaned up. In fact, there are plenty of examples we already have of this extracellular and intracellular junk causing serious problems. Such as cardiovascular disease.

    2. Re:It's a trap! by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      There's some speculation that the process of intermittent fasting -- from half a day to 8 days or more, simulating conditions that occurred in nature -- allows the body to clear out some senescent cells through autophagy. If true it would show that there is value in removing them, though non-drug induced process would probably be preferable for an average person.

    3. Re:It's a trap! by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      More often than not? Want to back that up? A few examples that stand out are not enough for you to think this.

    4. Re:It's a trap! by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      It could be that the body simply leaves them around in times of plenty, just waiting for the inevitable winter time when we would run out of food, and then break down the senescent cells to scavenge them for proteins. Our body doesn't have a dedicated protein store, like it does for fat and carbs. There is a lot of protein stored in the muscle, but breaking down muscle in times of hardship will be detrimental to your abilities to find the scarce food. Having some extra junker cells around could be an evolved strategy to improve the odds a little.

      If you want to get rid of your senescent cells, you should mimic that process by regular fasting. I plan to do a 5 day fast this winter.

    5. Re:It's a trap! by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      I could return to you with the same question: where's the evidence that there will be zero negative side effects from the removal of senescent cells?

      Or: how many examples would satisfy you?

      Geez bub, this is a discussion site, what's the harm in a little speculative discussion?

    6. Re:It's a trap! by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea.. On this thread though, are enough of these cells in a typical person to really make a difference on protein requirements? I'd imagine muscle tissue would be a considerably larger source. I doubt we have muscle-sized amount of senescent cells, eh?

    7. Re:It's a trap! by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      It's not just whole cells that can be scavenged, but also old organelles within each cell. You only need around 50 grams of protein on a normal day. During times of famine, construction of new cells is slowed down to minimal maintenance, so protein requirements are lower. There's about 10 kg of total protein in a human body, so even if just 1% (wild ass guess) of that is kept in the form of senescent cells and organelles, it should provide enough material to last a couple of extra days without impacting physical performance. In nature, that could be difference between life and death.

    8. Re:It's a trap! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      How do we know senescent cells don't play some other important role?

      Clinical trials.

      You know, like how all medicine gets made these days.

      Duh.

    9. Re:It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We removed the cells..turns out people live to be 200 years old. Side affect? If they don't have an appendix, they get cancer periodically.

      Of course we have cures for cancer when this happen so....give me 200 years and a cancer treatment every 10 years please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    10. Re:It's a trap! by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      Oh, for sure, we're fine for a long time without consuming protein...but it wouldn't be a straight conversion of 50g of senescent cells to 50g of usable protein. I don't know the breakdown, but I'd imagine that most of the cell isn't protein...and the other side of the question is how many g of senescent cells are in the average person?

  14. People deserve "Healthspan" by emil · · Score: 1

    If you would do us the kindness to RTFA, you would realize that your lifespan will not be increased if you were suddenly able to eliminate all of your senescent cells. Life extension is not on the table with this approach, as it is with techniques that mimic caloric restriction.

    However, should your senescent cells all undergo sudden removal, you would find yourself free from a number of age-related diseases. The article asserts that even a small number of senescent cells are able to act as powerful pathogens in otherwise healthy tissues.

    I also wholeheartedly agree that your type of people need to die. I, however would prefer any and all options for life extension, and I would gladly undertake environmental responsibilities and obligations to ameliorate my "footprint."

    1. Re:People deserve "Healthspan" by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you'd actually Read The Fucking Article you'd know that

      Most of the benefit seen in mice seems to be in extending healthspan, the time free of frailty or disease, and as a result median lifespan (being sick, after all, is risky)

      I guess you missed that part? Or were you confused by:

      True longevity – the maximum time the animals remain alive for – remains relatively unchanged, though studies published in July and September 2018 show an extension of remaining lifespan in mice that were treated when they were very old.

      So, the very longest-lived individuals might not benefit much from this, but many more of the population might be able to reach that age.

      Lifespan of individuals increased, maximum longevity maybe not. Or they might just need more treatments. The future will tell us.

  15. Re: Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More likely it will lead to Zombies.

    In all seriousness, this is a dangerous thing, and not in the anti-vaxx context. If people are given some kind of treatment that auto-kills cells, it doesnâ(TM)t take any stretch to see that the treatment can backfire.

  16. Science vs Existential Threat by voicofsf · · Score: 1

    It's interesting that the comments have skewed toward a fear, an existential fear, of this research. MIT Tech Review (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612124/clearing-out-old-cells-might-help-the-brain/) on 9/19/2018 first caught my eye. The goal seems less about extending one's lifespan as retaining 'vigor' as we age. The diseases, age-related impairments, that are within the scope of this research are considerable. I haven't seen any documentation about the possible benefit of longer life. Doesn't sound unreasonable, however. We have a serious problem with ageism in the States. In the Bay Area, the 40's can be more than just a bump in the road for your career. More like a concrete barricade. We take for granted that there'll be a decline in our quality of life rather early on.

    For those with the appropriate science background, here's a relevant article from Nature: https://go.nature.com/2PkZqLR (hope this shortened url works, the original was tremendously long). Also, under patent 9,980,962 May 2018, the abstract states, "Methods are provided herein for selectively killing senescent cells and for treating senescence-associated diseases and disorders by administering a senolytic agent. Senescence-associated diseases and disorders treatable by the methods using the senolytic agents described herein include cardiovascular diseases and disorders associated with or caused by arteriosclerosis, such as atherosclerosis; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; osteoarthritis; senescence-associated ophthalmic diseases and disorders; and senescence-associated dermatological diseases and disorders."

    In sum, not scary at all. At least to those with related conditions or the possibility of same. And that's just about all of us.

  17. Fasting... by js290 · · Score: 1

    Nature already figured this out. Autophagy kicks in in a fasted state.

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
  18. What about reducing fertility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How's the progress in reducing human fertility going? We can't have old people living longer and more younger ones being born at the same time given how we're already faced with so many resource and space shortages already on our planet.

    1. Re:What about reducing fertility? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Birth rate is already at or below replacement rate in the developed world where this treatment would be available.

  19. Re: Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It may be dangerous, but I don't much like the alternative.

  20. I hope I die early by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My life sucks and I want to die as soon as possible.

    1. Re:I hope I die early by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I wish you a long and happy life. I don't know how slashdot could continue if AC passed away.

      --
      Nullius in verba
  21. The cure for Baldness only 5 years away by MikeS2k · · Score: 1

    I think the only thing that isn't dying is this story; I've read an article talking about how Death itself will be cured "any day now" for the past 20 years, and we are still nowhere near closer to a cure than when Indiana Jones set out looking for the Holy Grail.
    We can't even cure Male Pattern Baldness, where the cure has been 5 years away for 50 years.

    One other thing, if a cure does come out I'll be glad to take it; if only to find out what discoveries they make out in the Universe. It is strange to see that the average Slashdot poster has such a bad life that they would welcome Death; is the stereotype about the average Slashdot user true? or is it simply because the average Slashdot user comes from the USA and so would only be working for that 300 years anyway?

    --
    120 characters should be enough for anybody
  22. This Is Stupid And Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So What. It Won't Change Anything. People Are Meant To Die At 80 And Increasing Lifespan Is Unnatural....... The LORD Will Prevent This From Working Because God Is Supreme And The Span Of Man On This Fallen World Is Short As A Mercy Not A Problem...... If Our Leaders Were Really God-Fearing Men They Would Fire A Nuclear Crusade On Islam... But They're All Afraid Of Dying... Gee I Wonder Why????

  23. Old People != No Social Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That old views would never die out is complete nonsense.
    People often change their views over time and young people can have horrible conservative views, too.
    Only people with old diseased brains who are incapable of processing new information don't.
    Those are going to be cured!

  24. Dictators need to die by Ostracus · · Score: 2

    Technically correct while missing the greater point. It's not the "who" so much as the "what kind of person"? Life extend every dictator and see what happens.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:Dictators need to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the book 'King of the Hill' this is a study of the lifetime of every regimeleader they could get data of.

      Leaders in dictatorships live shorter lives then leaders in democracies.
      Reason being that power always changes hands sooner or later, and in a dictatorship loosing power is deadly.

  25. Climate change by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    How ironic if we were to eliminate ageing just as the planet decides to rid itself of us irritating little ticks.

    1. Re:Climate change by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      How ironic if we were to eliminate ageing just as the planet decides to rid itself of us irritating little ticks.

      People who can actually live long enough to experience a real change of climate might be more inclined to pay attention to the possibility of a poor change.

  26. Yeah, nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ""The idea is to load the body with nanoparticles that insert a 'suicide gene' into every cell," reports The Guardian. "It only triggers if a cell has a lot of particular protein (p16) that acts as a marker of zombie cells, albeit imperfectly.""

    There's not enough faith in the entire hooman species that would allow me to comfortable accept that proposal... lol.