Longevity Gene Found 358
quixote9 writes "Calorie restriction while maintaining nutrient levels has long been known to dramatically increase life spans. Very different lab animals, from worms to mice, live up to 50% longer (or even more) on the restricted diets. However, so far, nobody has been able to figure out how this works. Scientists at the Salk Institute have found a specific gene in worms (there's a very similar one in people) that is directly involved in the longevity effect. That opens up the interesting possibility that doctors may someday be able to activate that gene directly and we can live long and prosper . . . without giving up chocolate."
Re:Earlier death (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:OTOH (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it strange (Score:2, Interesting)
IMHO this stems from a belief that zest for life is NOT a biological effect, but rather a result of inexperience.
People grow jaded with age, many even grown comfortable with their own mortality.
I am inclined to believe that the biological decay of our bodies is a main cause of declining appetite for life.
not only do people live longer on calorie restrict (Score:3, Interesting)
so your calorie restricted 90 year old is like your uncalorie restricted 60 year old
in other words, you don't just extend lifespan, you extend the period of robust physical ability to continue working and earning a living
in a hypothetical society where these longevity genes were activated somehow in a large segment of the population, it wouldn't be crazy to imagine retirement ages of 90 or 100
Tithonus (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:OTOH (Score:2, Interesting)
Pros:
- Less money spent on education since the productive years of each person would be much longer, just think of what the pay would be for a *nix admin with 120 years of experience that still have 80 years left until retirement
- Less money spent on caring for the elderly, since people would probably choose to end their life sooner since not everyone would want to be 300 years.
- More time to save money for when you get old.
- Less need for healthcare since people are 'younger' longer.
- You could spend 30 years in school if you really wanted, or maybe go back to school once every 40 years if you are bored with your current line of work.
- When you choose to get children you could have saved up enough money to stay at home with them until they move out, if you want.
- Less rush on life.
Cons:
- A life-sentence would really be something then =)
- Just hope that you only get 'old' just before you die.
- Hope for a creative job. Don't even want to imagine a 100 years as a garbage-collector (or sanitation-worker if you want to be politically correct
- I would guess it would result in a lot more divorces.. 200 years with the same girl... 200 years of shopping... GAAAH where's that poison-needle? =)
So i think that this would be a good thing for almost everyone.
worms and caloric restriction: the dauer effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Being able to support yourself in retirement (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Earlier death not really (Score:3, Interesting)
Read this. [tcsdaily.com]
I thought "calorie restriction" study was debunked (Score:4, Interesting)
Thing is, rats that have a normal diet live as long as rats that have calorie restricted diet.
Or, that's how I understand it.
Ha, ha, but ... (Score:3, Interesting)
You know what? Eating healthy takes a little more effort and attention, but it actually tastes a hell of a lot better.
Just walking into a fast-food place now actually makes me a little nauseous. I know tastes vary -- hell, I used to love that stuff myself. But now it's, "Ye gods, how did I ever choke that crap down?"
It's like using real maple syrup after being raised using Maple-Flavored Pancake Topping. "Oh, this is what that other stuff is pretending to be."
Re:Population control, NOW! (Score:3, Interesting)
That would explain why the amount of land farmed in North America has been falling for decades, and the population would be stable or shrinking were it not for immigration, yes?
The fact is that by the time I am old the "population crisis" will be under-population, not over-population, at least so long as religious nutjobs don't get their way. You see, regardless of what your faith tells you "just makes sense", the fact is that increasing the status of women, and increasing urban populations (which increases wealth while decreasing ecological footprint--the most environmentally friendly place to live in North America is downtown New York City) both result in large decreases in the birth rate.
If you want to "enact population control" you only need advocate equal rights and strong legal protections for women, and increased urbanization. Those two things, which are happening at a great rate in places like India, will moderate human population growth within a few decades. I fully expect to be alive as part of the largest human cohort that has ever existed, and it will continue to be the largest for some centuries, until we start colonizing other planets in a serious way.
Re:Population control, NOW! (Score:3, Interesting)
Might we do a great deal of damage to the planet? Yep we sure will.
Will the damage we do to the planet last forever? Not a chance in hell; if we manage to kill ourselves off some other species will slowly begin to take over for whatever reason. This is just how our planet works, get over it.
Oh and don't you worry, Global Warming is going to help with population control too! I predict that there will be massive destablization in China/India within the next twenty years: partially due to global warming, partially due to over population and most of it having to do with the preference for male babies over female babies in these countries (I believe India has this same problem, please correct me if I'm wrong). As it stands today, a huge imbalance exists and this imbalance will have the greatest affect on the poorer parts of China. This is going to be a huge issue, if men can't find women there will be an amazing degree of unrest. We are really such simple creatures...it's great
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508 [msn.com]
Re:6.5 Billion people and growing (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course it'll level off after everyone gets the treatment, but the new established 'level' will be higher than it otherwise would be.
I still think the emphasis should be on living better, not living longer. Do we really want the retirement age to go up to 85 or beyond? Oy. I think there would be a lot of social changes and accomodations that would be required as well. Let's not even talk about social security or anything like that, as that gets REALLY messy.