Geneticists Claim Aging Breakthrough 408
Quirk writes "The Science section of The Guardian is reporting on recent experiments by geneticists 'to unlock the secrets of the aging process has created organisms that live six times their usual lifespan, raising hopes that it might be possible to slow ageing in humans.' 'In the experiment, Dr Longo's team took yeast cells and knocked out two key genes, named Sir2 and SCH9. The latter governs the cells' ability to convert nutrients into energy. They found that instead of dying after a week, the cells lived for up to six weeks.''Research has now begun to test whether the effect works in mice.' So it looks like we might soon have near immortal, fearless mice."
Fearless cancels out Immortal (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see the point of extending life. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, humans living a few hundred years and staying able-bodied for most of it would be an incredible advance and would probably serve to benefit society, but... otherwise... I fear and do NOT welcome our new 400-year-old jello eating overlords.
Re:transhumanists miss the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's gonna get.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hilander (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing that will last longer than I will is the copyright on my face.
Re:We have that already (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
exactly at the age at which i am too old to partake of any of it
That's not really a joke.
People in government see anti-aging research and treatments in terms of the financial load on the retirement and medical infrastructure relative to the tax base of still-working young, and view improved treatments as extending the life of the infirm aged rather than extending productive, vigorous youth. As a result they tend to be opposed to such research, or in favor of rationing its fruits if it ever has any.
(I recall back in the early days of CNN, when the head of one of the government agencies was being live-interviewed on future solvency issues as the boomers retired, and he slipped and said "We have to get the death rate up to meet the birthrate." Guess what part got clipped from the replay a few hours later...)
Life-extension advocates, of course, point out that real breakthroughs will extend healthy, vigorous life rather than simply stretching senility - and might eventually eliminate the latter entirely. Thus an effective attack on aging would reduce, rather than increase, the load on the systems (once they were adjusted for the increased lifespan).
You'll notice that a significant fraction of The Fine Article is dedicated to heading off such short-sightedness on the part of the portion of the ruling class that will be dispensing grant money and regulating availability of any treatments.
Re:Hilander (Score:3, Insightful)
Algernon called; he wants his science back.
Re:Do not go gently into that goodnight.... (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of social change can take place because old people (and more specifically, old people ideas) die. I'm sure many of us feel that our ideas are enlightened and superior to those of our ancestors, but when we're all pushing 70, we really shouldn't be the ones deciding the direction which society goes. In the year 2050, we're all going to be bitter crotchety old people, set in our ideas talking about these young kids and their crazy ideas. I'm concerned what living in that kind of world will be like. It might have a stagnation effect on a culture, with other "non-longevity" cultures overtaking our own.
I'm still 100% for longevity, but it's not going to be great grandmas and grandpas riding roller blades down the sidewalk as healthy as they were when they were 40. There's going to be definate social change the kind the human race has never seen.
Be sure of one more thing. Someone's going to make a FORTUNE if effective anti-aging drugs can be mass produced. Like, hundreds of billions of dollars, hand over fist.
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:great... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's not a joke. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but the politicians worry that they can only use the same old tricks on people for so long before they wise up, so they don't want people living too much longer. And the elderly vote in some of the highest numbers... of course maybe if they were healthy and fit they could be distracted more easily.
This is worrisome. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Do not go gently into that goodnight.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, people who have lived their entire lives with a technology internalize it in a way that the older generation just can't. They can take it and extend it out in radical new directions because to them it is basis for how they see the world, rather than an abberation. Companies in the UK are now offering textbooks by SMS, but my grandmother is still shocked whenever I pull out my cellphone. The older generation can contextualize it, but that isn't the same thing.
Progress is made in a hearse.
Re:This is worrisome. (Score:1, Insightful)
Humans are able to altar their environments to fit their needs. We no longer require evolution to keep up - we make the world keep up with us (not always a good thing, but a fact). Our technology dramatically limits the effects of natural selection, barring third world countries.
I'm not saying huge lifespans would not possibly cause problems with overpopulation... but the tack you're taking is entirely the wrong one. It doesn't make sense. For evolution to work, weaker individuals have to be prevented from reproducing. Our technology lets those people reproduce and our ethics require us to use it.
Evolution, with respect to humans (I *know* you're not dumb enough to think we'd for some idiotic reason try to altar wild populations to be immortal or have extended lifespans...), is a non-issue.
Re:We have that already (Score:3, Insightful)
The Sirtuin genes are well established as a regulator of genes expressed near the ends of telomeres and there are many researchers studying its effects in mammals in fact there are pharmaceutical companies (Sirtris for instance) betting the pharm that, resveratrol, a component of red wine and activator of mammalian sir2 pathway, can be tweaked into a more powerful drug and help everyone live healthier longer.
Whichever way you look at it... aging is going to be "oh so yesterday..." within the next few years. Baby boomers will soon get the message that we know enough to start really looking at the dysfunction that increases as we get older as "treatable" by attacking it at the root cellular processes which give rise to it. Now if only those people in the "pro-aging trance" could wake-up we'd there would really be an all out War on Aging and many of our parents and loved ones would be around longer not to mention the 250 billion dollars that would be saved not having to buy diapers for them. Seems the best solution to the rising costs of Medicare from an increasingly frail population that everyone is whining about is to maker sure they don't get frail in the first place.
In fact..
There's a research prize of THREE MILLION DOLLARS being offered to the scientist that beat the world record for the lifespan of a mouse using any technologies available.
Mprize [mprize.org]
Re:That's not a joke. (Score:3, Insightful)
Long term, the birthrate in the US is actually fine, and SS is *not* a pyramid scheme. It currently works on the assumption that people work at their career for about 40 years, save during that time (actually pay for those on retirement) and then retire for 20 years or so living essentially off their savings. If the birthrate and deathrates are steady and retirement savings are adequate, the scheme is actually workable.
In practice the various rates (savings, pensions, etc) need to be adjusted to account for demographics, but for political reasons they are hard to adjust. This is what makes SS screwed. It needs to be reactive and far-sighted, because people by and large aren't.