Key Gene Found Responsible For Accelerated Aging and Cancer 114
First time accepted submitter gbrennan123 writes "Researchers at NYU School of Medicine have identified a single gene that simultaneously controls inflammation, accelerated aging and cancer. From the article: '"This was certainly an unexpected finding," said principal investigator Robert J. Schneider, PhD, the Albert Sabin Professor of Molecular Pathogenesis, associate director for translational research and co-director of the Breast Cancer Program at NYU Langone Medical Center. "It is rather uncommon for one gene to have two very different and very significant functions that tie together control of aging and inflammation. The two, if not regulated properly, can eventually lead to cancer development. It's an exciting scientific find."'"
new finding (Score:5, Informative)
a gene called AUF1 controls inflammation by turning off the inflammatory response to stop the onset of septic shock.
The new discovery, which they apparently discovered and will be shown when their paper is published, was that AUF1 also releases telomerase to repair telomeres.
The current study reveals that AUF1....also maintains the integrity of chromosomes by activating the enzyme telomerase to repair the ends of chromosomes
But how long before this is actually usable? (Score:1)
So, when is this usable? in say 30 years?
I sure hope there is some way that cancer is gone in a couple of years, and then live slightly longer.
Re:But how long before this is actually usable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Have him pick me up a couple rolls while he's out, in that case...
Re:But how long before this is actually usable? (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on what you mean by usable. It immediately prompts a study of human populations to identify how certain defects can impair it's function which will likely lead to the development of gene therapies to correct those defects, and if beneficial variants can be identified, could later lead to general purpose gene therapies to slow the rate of aging. It may also lead to studies for the development of drugs to modify it's action, but thats probably farther out than basic gene therapies for those with defective instances of these genes.
Re: (Score:1)
cancer is evolution. It's how DNA tries new stuff. If it works, survival. If it doesn't work, death.
Re: (Score:3)
cancer is evolution. It's how DNA tries new stuff. If it works, survival. If it doesn't work, death.
Most of that applies to mutation. Are you saying that all cancers are the result of mutation, all mutation causes cancer, or something else?
Re: (Score:2)
cancer is not evolution....it is caused, for most cancers, by a local mutation of somatic cells that produces cancer cells in a specific tissue. The mutation is due to environmental conditions (poor nutrition, poor habits, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
cancer is not evolution....it is caused, for most cancers, by a local mutation of somatic cells that produces cancer cells in a specific tissue. The mutation is due to environmental conditions (poor nutrition, poor habits, etc).
I'm reading some fascinating stuff (Biology of Cancer - Weinberg) that says there are huge amounts of point mutations taking place throughout the body all the time from oxidants. Also with LOH and inherited loss of genetic viability, indications were that while there are certain effe
Re: (Score:1)
Inflammation and heart disease and (Type II) diabetes are all intimately tied together, too. One wonders...and hopes.
Re: (Score:1)
Way to go, picking only on the poor, you Anonymous Jackass.
Re: (Score:2)
I see one AC is much like another; and you and your clone are just another bunch of gun-toting, tax-evading shitheads who can't think.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Without the upwards pressure of too many humans we'll never get off this shit hole of a planet :)
Re: (Score:2)
Without the upwards pressure of too many humans we'll never get off this shit hole of a planet :)
You have deep psychological issues which won't be cured by space tourism, Tonto.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:But how long before this is actually usable? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you've "cured" aging there are no "old people".
Re: (Score:2)
There's still the genetic, physical and mental wear-and-tear of an extended lifespan to deal with. There's no cure for entropy. People will still have varying levels of skill and experience, and most likely will become more cautious and set in their ways as they age.
Re:But how long before this is actually usable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, but "curing" aging means fixing those genetic and physical weat-and-tear issues. Mental is another story, but who knows maybe massively extended lifespans makes people less cautious. Since we don't have them we don't know.
And of course there's a cure for entropy. Humans are not closed systems after all. Heck the heat pump in my house "cures" entropy.
More cautious makes sense - you have more to lose dieing early, you have more to lose by losing your wealth, etc. Then again you've already lived a long time, maybe you consider it worth taking more risks just for the excitement value, maybe knowing you have huge amounts of time to make up that lost wealth makes risk taking more attractive?
Maybe centuries of wisdom more than compensates for whatever youth brings.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the resulting wars for resources would see governments create policies that make China's one child policy look libertarian.
Or massive lifespans would spur expansion into space - now people will survive to see the results and a 200 year journey is just a minor footnote in your life.
Or the drive to have children would be "fixed" as the same time "aging" is fixed. Or that would automatically as people just keep putting it off (which is as you almost said what is happening in the western countries now - peop
Re: (Score:2)
Or massive lifespans would spur expansion into space - now people will survive to see the results and a 200 year journey is just a minor footnote in your life.
200 years of boredom cooped up in a large tin can, interspersed with occasional flashes of sickening danger, does not sound like an appealing prospect however long you're going to live.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure for you.
But maybe to someone who has been alive for a 2000 years, going into a 200 year sleep knowing that i they do survive the trips the people they know will all still be alive if they decide to make the return trip.
Maybe risks become more enjoyable when you will for essentially ever if you avoid accidents?
I wasn't claiming any of my statement were facts, just possibilities. It's so far outside our experience we won't know until (well there's an if there somewhere) we get close to it.
I personally fi
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side, environmental concerns would take a huge leap forward, since its not people five generations down the road who will be affected by your decisions, its you personally. The world would go 100% renewable in a matter of years.
On the minus side, death really is the great leveller. The concentrations of wealth accumulated get dispersed among heirs and a large lump gets given to the government. This serves numerous important roles, but if people just aren't dying, you are going to see a huge disp
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe centuries of wisdom more than compensates for whatever youth brings.
Pert titties, that's what youth has going for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Someone who's lived a long time is old by definition (even if not decrepit).
Re: (Score:2)
"Long" is a relative measurement, and in the sense of "old" a "long time" tends to be relative to normal lifespan. By definition, a 6 month baby is "old"... relative to a mayfly.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Who has the patent on Soylent Green?
Re: (Score:3)
There were sci-fi short stories sbout this theme that were written in the 1950's, before suburbanization. One was that a drug called Eternitol or something similar was found and that led to three or four grnerations of the same family living together. Others had the roads department deliberately timing traffic lights and placing street signs to cause as many traffic accidents as possible to achieve population control. The other had families fighting in home invasions in order to get birth permission documen
Re: (Score:2)
There was a start trek episode on this (original one) about some planet that had no disease and lif expectancy was too long, and they had a population problem...and had developed a lottery to see who would die. Then there was a similar episode on sliders, about a lottery that allowed you to get money from an ATM but increased your chances of winning...the prize was death, so the more money you took out for free....the greater your chances at dying....
These are quite big moral issues, if China is making it s
Re:But how long before this is actually usable? (Score:5, Interesting)
Letting nature control population means relying on one or more of nature's methods. These are also known as War, Famine, Pestilence and Death. Human choices of control are preferrable if they beat nature's. By beat, we could be talking about "less wasteful", "kinder", or somehow "ethically fairer", and the exact conclusion will vary depending on which we emphasize. In fact, we could be trying to balance many such goals. You may be arguing from some definition of "ethically fairer", "less wasteful", "less arbitrary", or some other standard. So if you really want somebody to tell you what's faulty about your proposal, until you can explain what you are trying to accomplish better than by just letting nature take its course you don't really have any logic behind your claim to refute. Without that understanding, your proposal is an emotional argument disguised as a reasoned conclusion.
Knocking out aging actually has relatively little effect on population growth in some ways, for example women still stop having fertile eggs at menopause even if they typically live much longer. How many of those opportunities to fertilize an egg actually get used has a direct effect on population that is really larger than any possible additional lifespan.
(Yes, try the math. Increase the lifespan to a blisteringly worst case full 800 years, which would be about the average if we assume nobody dies of anything except violent accidents and deliberates such as being struck by a bus or shot in a war, and add some additional worst case for population assumptions such as that most of the people who kill themselves either do it early or wouldn't do it at all if they had their health. Assume ALL fatal diseases are cureable, and all people enjoy a biological age of about 25 for as long as they live, but women still stop being fertile about 45 to 50. Now instead assume current longevity prevails, but take the worldwide reproductive rate back up to about 4.2 children per generation, add that we can somehow feed all those kids for a few generations and so the rate can (temporarily, from a long enough perspective) stay that high, and now guess which group eventually gets bigger than the other way.).
By the way, surgical sterilization is seldom reversable. The usual effect is that closing off the tubes (for either gender) triggers internal scarring and often within a couple of years an autoimmune reaction sets in which causes the eggs to become infertile or the sperm to not fully form. The odds of a pregnancy resulting from a successful reversal are as low as 20% for the most common methods of female sterilization, although there is a procedure involving simply banding the tubes with clips or rings and doing no cutting and this gives odds as high as 70%. Male sterilization reversal has slightly better odds than that, but this assumes the surgeon did the original procedure with an eye towards eventual reversal, the reversal can include more than a simple reconnection but be followed as necessary with a complete epididymal repair (with a doctor who can determine on the fly which of three different procedures should be used after he or she actually gets in there) and the auto immune reation didn't happen. We're talking about a great success rate if you have one of a few dozen extremely skilled doctors who can do that work, but those guys are a bit like heart transplant surgeons - they don't grow on trees, and they don't come cheap. If you pay a doctor public clinic wages to bulk sterilize poor people, he or she won't be a doctor with that sort of success rate on reversals. You're making something sound simple and reliable which is actually pretty much experimental rocket science, and nobody should get sterilized with the idea that it can reliably be fixed if they change their mind or circumstances..
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's not forget the most likely cause of future reduction in America's middle-class (and above) birth rates: thirtysomething men who happily occupy their rent-free wing of Mom & Dad's McMansion, and have relatively high-paying jobs that finance cool toys, nice cars, a half-dozen vacations, and casual sex with college-age girls roughly 2/3 their age (shamelessly outspending their frustrated, mostly celibate college-age male peers) and have zero interest in dating girls their own age, because those girls
Re: (Score:1)
Speak for yourself. Some of us don't want to remain children.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because the only way to become a real adult is to have a kid. What the fuck? If that's your reason for having kids, you probably aren't mature enough to be having kids.
Re: (Score:2)
zero interest in dating girls their own age, because those girls all seem to be obsessed with marriage and having kids -- something they have zero interest in. Their college-age fsckbuddies view pregnancy as a major social disaster, use birth control, and run to their local abortion clinic at the slightest hint of pregnancy.
I think what you mean is that they *assume* women their age are so obsessed. There's actually an emerging trend of thirtysomething women who are less concerned about marriage per se than about partnership, and who have no particular desire for children (or, at least, for biological children -- which negates most of the pressure of that pesky "biological clock" people so enjoy clucking their tongues about). We're well aware of how much people give up by having kids, and just because we have ovaries doesn't
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
If this weren't Slashdot I'd swear you were a thirty something husband hunter.
The best correlation with birthrate is female education. That strongly suggests that it's the women who want to defer (or skip entirely) having kids in favour of building careers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
i propose first we start with a simple new federal law. if you take food stamps, WIC, SNAP, etc., you are required to be surgically sterlized. start with the negligent parents who can't afford children. if they start to prosper they can afford to reverse the surgery. till then, i don't give a damn who feels "offended" by this - if you can barely afford to feed yourself and you want to have children who are going to go hungry, you don't deserve to have children you selfish fuck. anybody wanna calmly, with logic, tell me why that is faulty?
I dont know why the above comment was moderated negatively. Its true, we are 7+ billion now. How come people who can't get food for themselves, is allowed to bring more children?
Look what happened in China, with their one-child policy. Sure there were disadvatages, but, do you think China would be better now, if such policy would be never implemented?
If you feel to scared of massive sterilization, how about a one-child policy in any poor/overpopulated country? Doy you think India would be damaged with suc
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, that people with these excessive sense of self-importance think that the enlightened West should teach the world about how to reduce the population so the Western way of life could continue. That's the real problem here not the idea of birth-control.
First of all, look at the Western countries. It's not all that fun, if we put our demographics in perspective. An ageing population with decreasing number of active hands and hence, falling productivity. You can catch the tendencies of the problem
Re: (Score:3)
Hi... I am a member of the screwed over generation.
1)Home is worthless because of the irresponsibility of the previous generations
2)Saddled in huge student loan debt because of the lack of care that previous generations had for controlling the cost inflation...they got theirs as it were.
3)Stagnating wages so the old people can keep their high wages and pensions
4)If the wrong people get elected, I will lose middle class tax breaks (mortgage interest deduction, child deduction, etc), because the middle class
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that it's called "politically" correct in the first place answers the question.
People in power ALWAYS make the decisions, that's what being IN POWER means.
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem with the comment is that it is a paradox. A conservative mind came up with it. to have such a program, the conservative would have to come to terms with the fact that it must be paid for through taxes...so...never gonna happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that 'politically correct' BS always is imposed over strict rationality?
I dunno, some of us have an instinctual aversion to totalitarian social engineering imposed in the name of "strict rationality"... might have something to do with the 20th century.
Sterilize yourselves (Score:2)
i propose first we start with a simple new federal law. if you take food stamps, WIC, SNAP, etc., you are required to be surgically sterlized. start with the negligent parents who can't afford children. if they start to prosper they can afford to reverse the surgery. till then, i don't give a damn who feels "offended" by this - if you can barely afford to feed yourself and you want to have children who are going to go hungry, you don't deserve to have children you selfish fuck. anybody wanna calmly, with logic, tell me why that is faulty?
I dont know why the above comment was moderated negatively.
Can't speak for the mods, but perhaps one of the things that prompted a negative reaction (despite many glowing responses) is an education about the harmfulness of eugenics and the enormous logical flaws in its reasoning. And maybe bonus points for following a tremendously selfish proposal with "you selfish fuck" followed by "calmly, with logic".
Aside from the generic eugenics critique, the specific idea promotes a value that childbearing is earned; it promotes a value that people who have been harmed by th
It's not eugenics, it's caring for the newbown (Score:1)
i propose first we start with a simple new federal law. if you take food stamps, WIC, SNAP, etc., you are required to be surgically sterlized. start with the negligent parents who can't afford children. if they start to prosper they can afford to reverse the surgery. till then, i don't give a damn who feels "offended" by this - if you can barely afford to feed yourself and you want to have children who are going to go hungry, you don't deserve to have children you selfish fuck. anybody wanna calmly, with logic, tell me why that is faulty?
I dont know why the above comment was moderated negatively.
Can't speak for the mods, but perhaps one of the things that prompted a negative reaction (despite many glowing responses) is an education about the harmfulness of eugenics and the enormous logical flaws in its reasoning. And maybe bonus points for following a tremendously selfish proposal with "you selfish fuck" followed by "calmly, with logic".
Aside from the generic eugenics critique, the specific idea promotes a value that childbearing is earned; it promotes a value that people who have been harmed by the economy are less worthy; it promotes a value that social programs are a burden on the most powerful in society and a handout to the most powerless, rather than a benefit to the entire society; it promotes the ludicrous idea that bearing children is a net burden on either the family or the society; it imposes a set of additional costs in money and management bureaucracy on the social programs the beneficiary has, in aggregate, already paid for; it shifts those costs away from the entire society which benefits from the programs and onto the people least able to carry the burden; it sets up a regime where some people get to determine whether other people can bear children; the regime that determines eligibility for childbearing is designed by those actually responsible for the economic harm to the people affected by the proposed law; this regime is implemented by bureaucrats who, among other things, cannot be elected or recalled; and it completely fails to reason with the fact that poor people, on the whole, have children for the important reason that mouths to feed are attached to hands to help.
It's true that a growing population can be a burden on the ecosystem, and that we're facing that burden now. It doesn't follow that the most elementary and ignorant proposal—a proposal with the rigor of 1930s fascism but none of its famed efficiency—is the appropriate solution. And it's fascinating but unfortunately unsurprising that the supposedly "rational" among us are accelerating the rhetorical war against the most powerless in society while powerlessness is being showered on us. It's cowardly and anything but rational. And if it goes unchallenged, it becomes increasingly likely that we'll see this sort of eugenic ethic find a comfortable sea in which to swim in a revival of that 30s-era fascism.
There are far better ways to address population growth, the most obvious two being the elimination of poverty and the empowerment of women. Remarkably, in so doing we will have also established the political will to address the problems of a declining and aging population as well: we will have a public policy of solidarity, health and wellbeing rather than ignorance, division and blame. And we can do it with less cost and less risk.
Some guys in pro of letting irresponsible reproduction happen, even argued economic reasons!! Yet the nazis are the ones proposing better birth control!!
My point is simple, despite political or economical reasoning, if you are not allowed to get a loan from the bank, if you don't meet minimal requirements, how come you'd be allowed to have 5 to 10 children if you are not able to GET FOOD FOR YOURSELF?
How come a person who is not able to get food for themselves, is going to be able to get food, educations, h
Re:"aging and inflammation.The two, if not regulat (Score:5, Funny)
how does one regulate aging?
Convince Republicans that it involves gays marrying.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that's how you can regulate anything.
Re: (Score:1)
By regulating the damage that's results as people get older. It's not the age that's generally the problem it's these processes that go on causing small amounts of damage over decades. Things like the telemeres shortening and eventually cutting into vital DNA during replication. And the damage that inflammation does to things like the cardiovascular system.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a point to be made is that the opposite of accellerated aging due to lack of AUF1 (and its effect on causing repairing ends of DNA) is not delaying aging and prolonging life, it's normal aging.
And while delaying aging based on perpetually repairing ends of DNA, as an interested layman reading Weinberg's Biology of Cancer, cell immortalization "is a step that appears to govern the development of all human cancers."
In other words, that's one of the universal mutations that enable human cancer, as I un
Link to actual paper? (Score:2)
Re:Link to actual paper? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But if he *swallowed* a mouse it would be in a human.
Re: (Score:3)
Human DNA has teleomerase and teleomeres . Its known that inflammation and infection leads to swelling. Like arthritis patients - when the immune system gets hyperactive, white T-cells go into an "angry" state and attack healthy cells. The eventual destruction due to this pricess ends up with joints losing cartilage, grinding agsinst each other and causing more inflammation.
The flip side (Score:3)
Imagine a world where you just pop a pill and keep living as long as you want. Without additionally having drastic population control, that's going to doom us to a totally unsustainable world, if we don't have that already. But even with that unlikely flip-side, imagine a population that is just fixed at some point with the people it has right now, never dying, never having offspring. How creepy would that be?
Jut sayin' - food for thought (and maybe a sci-fi novel).
Re: (Score:1)
Have you seen child birth? Or an autopsy? Those things are creepy. Being able to watch Seinfeld reruns for a thousand years? Not so creepy.
Re:The flip side (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many, many genes involved in different forms of cancer, the most this will do is impact research in a few forms of the disease.
Immortality would get tedious after a while. What you really want is a method to transcribe the contents of the brain plus the original genome of the body, altered to include a flesh-eating component that is normally inactive. When the body inevitably wears out, you make a few adjustments to the genome to prevent that cause of death killing you again. You then make the stem cell "carnivorous", using the raw material of your old body to create a new one, re-inserting "you" into the new brain in the process.
I call this technique "regeneration" and think that, in the interests of population control, people should be limited to 12 of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I call this technique "regeneration" and think that, in the interests of population control, people should be limited to 12 of them.
Okay, admit it: you didn't think of this yourself! Did you get this idea from some sort of Doctor? WHO?
Re: (Score:2)
I am Rassilon! Besides, if prior art isn't a problem for patents.... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Immortality would get tedious after a while.
Speak for yourself. I can think of things to do that would fill a loooooong time.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, but debugging Windows isn't everyone's cup of tea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without additionally having drastic population control, that's going to doom us to a totally unsustainable world
Nah. We're already on the cusp of the dawn of the true space age, there's all the room in the universe out there. Even if there wasn't, people aren't gaping maws of resource consumption, they are overall producers. The real trick will be to bring developing countries up to western standards of living, that way population growth will even out. Look at that Indian kid that solved the physics problem in Germany lately, how many like him are languishing in slums across the globe? Wicked waste of human potential
Re: (Score:2)
"To Live Forever" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a lot more worried about an engineered flu virus that flips these bits and makes you die early and inflamed. Guess now we know what Captain Trips will be made from.
so.... (Score:3)
aging aircraft links the Pope to Elvis Presley (Score:3)
Most wide-eyed researchers started off expecting 60,000 genes in the human genome yet we found something closer to 20,000 when the mist settled.
By my early childhood instruction in improper fractions, it's not impossible that all 20,000 genes are holding down multiple jobs to make ends meet.
I am sure this gene activates and deactivates (Score:2)
I am sure this gene activates and deactivates based on environmental conditions. If I had to wager, I will be anti-inflammatory subspances have a huge effect on this gene.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say that I agree with this sentiment. I'd much rather be me living now, than The Buddha himself, as I still get to breathe, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Buddha didn't go to Nirvana when he died, the entire point is that he achieved enlightenment (got to Nirvana) while alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Achieving enlightenment is not going to Nirvana. Nirvana is a state that one is reincarnated to once enlightenment during one's life has been reached. Death is a requirement for reincarnation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You still need to move FROM this existence to Nirvana, that elevation is the last reincarnation a being will make. Once a being enters Nirvana, yes, they no longer die and thus no longer reincarnate. And as I said...one must die to reach Nirvana.
Re:So? Why these richs don't finance research? (Score:1)
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying. - Woody Allen
I have to say that I agree with this sentiment. I'd much rather be me living now, than The Buddha himself, as I still get to breathe, etc.
The Woody Allens who donñt want to die, and many other billionaires in a similar situation.
How much worty their millions (or billions) have for them, when they die?
Why they dont invest more heavily in PROVEN research?
What could be more proving that financing in a more heavy way to guys like these? http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2009/ [nobelprize.org]
More and better assistants, better equipments, maids, chauffeurs, cooks, vacations (to recharge batteries) whatever is needed to keep people lik
Re: (Score:2)
Tragedy of the commons - the same reason why everybody screams about drug companies making money.
Doing research costs money. Once the research is done, knowing the results of that research usually costs very little. So, why not just let somebody else pay for it?
The true cost of research isn't what it cost to run the experiment that lead to the breakthrough. The real cost is all those experiments that led to nothing useful at all. The problem is that you can't have the first without doing a lot of the se
Re: (Score:1)
Tragedy of the commons - the same reason why everybody screams about drug companies making money.
Doing research costs money. Once the research is done, knowing the results of that research usually costs very little. So, why not just let somebody else pay for it?
The true cost of research isn't what it cost to run the experiment that lead to the breakthrough. The real cost is all those experiments that led to nothing useful at all. The problem is that you can't have the first without doing a lot of the second.
My point is, the billionaire has a few years of life left, a decade at best. What's the point of not doing anything to try to escape from death?
The Nobel laureates of 2009, Telomerase research, isn't that a secure enough bet?
Research like mentioned here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT1vxEpE1aI [youtube.com] Research about cryogenics?
Ok, it's not totally granted, but isn't betting in the most prestigious researchers available (hoping that grandchildren could be saved and getting their grandpa back to life somehow in t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure this happens to some degree. However, almost no amount of money would lead to a practical treatment for any disease in only a few years. If they thought there was even a 10% chance of success I wouldn't be surprised if many billionaires would spend their fortunes.
Most medical progress is measured in decades, not years. The money we spend today will make a better world for our kids. However, instead the trend in the developed world is to spend money on the cares of today and leave our kids natio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure I can find something interesting to do with the extra years. :p
Re: (Score:3)
Different things mean different things to different people. Who's to say someone watching TV and playing video games wasn't interesting to them? Or do we as a people dictate whether someone can have a greater life expectancy only if they are reasonably sure to do something perceived extraordinary by the general public?
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Define 'waste', please.
If suddenly I could live for another 500+ years I don't see what harm it would do if I spent some of that time enjoying myself.
I would still be able to read more books, study more things and be more productive than I ever could have if I only lived to be 80 or so.
The argument you're making is hardly unique and when taken to its logical conclusion is that we should all sleep on the ground, work all waking hours and eat mass-produced nutrient slurry because anything more than that would be decadent and wasteful indulgences.
Even more so (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure I can find something interesting to do with the extra years. :p
Ditto.
Even more so if, during the extra years, I am as healthy as I was at 20 (jogging as a normal gait) rather than at 65 (aching slightly all the time, pain in the morning, joints starting to fail, ...)
Coming from a line of people that typically lives to see birthdays numbered in the low nineties, I can say that even if I DON'T get any extra years it would still be a fine bonus to live just the rest of the same number without t
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, Shakyamuni Buddha lived into his 80s, Jean Manual Fangio only gave up professional motor racing in his 90s, and the Queen Mother was conducting human experiments on the effects of gin past the century mark.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, Shakyamuni Buddha lived into his 80s, Jean Manual Fangio only gave up professional motor racing in his 90s, and the Queen Mother was conducting human experiments on the effects of gin past the century mark.
Fangio was born June 24 1911 and died July 17 1995, and he did give up professional motor racing in his 90's.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's talent.