Blood of World's Oldest Woman Hints At Limits of Life 333
porkchop_d_clown (39923) writes "When Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper died in 2005, she was the oldest woman in the world. [New Scientist reported Wednesday] that, at the end of her life, most of her white blood cells had been produced by just two stem cells — implying the rest of her blood stem cells had already died, and hinting at a possible limit to the human life span."
Old News (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't this old news?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't this old news?
I see what you did there.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this old news?
I see what you did there.
I see what you did there.
Re:Old News (Score:4, Informative)
They do tell you in the article, but it's not spelled out. They looked at the range of mutations in the leucocytes in her blood and found that they had only two common patterns of mutations. That implies only two remaining blood stem cells.
They don't say that they harvested either of them. They say that they looked at blood samples. To have collected the blood stem cells, they'd need to have extracted the marrow from her long bones - femur and/ or ribs most likely. That's a much more intrusive operation, even if the patient is a corpse.
Neither the donor nor her next of kin were under any obligation to allow samples to be taken. Nor were they under any obligation to allow any additional testing to be performed on samples that were taken for therapeutic reasons. Nor were they under any obligation to allow any publication of data obtained either as a part of her therapies, or any publication of the researches (which they were under no obligation to allow) carried out on her body. So ... you're complaining that it took 10 years to get the research done, or that perhaps they imposed a moratorium on the work before it's publication? That's within their rights. As is privacy.
Isn't this Slashdot, where people foam at the mouth over governmental intrusion into privacy every 30 attoseconds? And you want to violate the privacy of a dead old woman before her ashes have cooled?
Bank them (Score:3)
If this is a critical factor for maintaining longevity it would seem to be a simple task to save up and grow a supply of stem cells when one is younger. The cord blood industry is essentially doing this now.
Re:Bank them (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is a critical factor for maintaining longevity ...
It is not clear that it is. So far there is ONE data point. Before we start extrapolating, we might want to look at some other old people.
Re:Bank them (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
But they smell funny..
So then just look.
Re:Bank them (Score:5, Insightful)
My thought upon reading this story was, "Oh, thank God!!"
I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick. I was beginning to fear that the medical community was going to try to force any level of existence to continue without regard to quality. Death is a part of life. I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.
Try working in the healthcare field. You'll see that that is the norm. Older patients often would be fine with letting go. But the family falls apart emotionally and pushes for ANY MEANS POSSIBLE to save them. It's pathetic. And it costs our healthcare industry billions that could be spent much better.
Re:Bank them (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly it doesn't stop with death too. Many more billions are wasted in the funeral racket. In my family my grandmother is a very simple and humble woman, but her darn kids keep insisting on fancy expensive gravestones and caskets in her end of life planning. It's like, you realize we are just going to throw dirt on this right? And she won't be "comfortable" regardless of how many pillows are in there.
Re:Bank them (Score:5, Insightful)
The comfort is actually for those who see her into the ground. They're not comfortable if the dead person doesn't look like a fucking piece of art. They call this "respect". They do it out of "respect" for the dead person. And so that the living left behind don't poke their eyes out for the rest of their lives that "this guy had no respect for this mother; he bought the cheapest plywood casket with a pillow made of hay". And if you don't want to move to a different state/country, you comply.
Re: (Score:2)
Real respect is dragging grandpa's corpse to several pubs for a last night of drinking with family and friends.
Re:Bank them (Score:5, Informative)
Real respect is dragging grandpa's corpse to several pubs for a last night of drinking with family and friends.
I know you're joking, but there's nothing I would want more.
Re:Bank them (Score:4, Insightful)
Make your living wills now.
Get the funeral (or lack of one) that you want.
Re: (Score:3)
Make your living wills now.
Get the funeral (or lack of one) that you want.
Technically a "Living Will" only applies while you're alive specifying health care directives should you become incapacitated. It terminates when you do. Your "Will" would be the place to specify your funeral wishes.
People in the US can setup/register and maintain a Living Will at the U.S. Living Will Registry [uslivingwillregistry.com] for a small fee (I think $5) - or free if submitted through a local hospital. You get a registration card for your wallet and the document can be accessed and maintained online.
My wife had a Li
Re:Bank them (Score:5, Funny)
There's a cremation service in the US that you can sign up for that will be ... aggressive ... in seeing your body cremated according to your wishes, (relatively) cheaply and quickly. Their market is precisely people who want to trump their family on this issue. But I'm blocking on the company name - anyone?
Soylent.
Re: (Score:2)
I humbly submit that, being in the healthcare field, you are seeing a higher concentration of misery than exists in the population-at-large. Just like an ER doctor in NY would assume that taxi cabs are the single largest cause of death and injury in the world.
Re:Bank them (Score:5, Insightful)
Death is a part of life. That doesn't mean it's good or shouldn't be fought against. Smallpox used to be a part of life too, and I doubt anyone's life is made worse by not having it around anymore.
The idea of longevity research, of course, is to make 100 year old body indistinguishable from a 20 year old body, not merely to "keep the heart beating".
Really? On what, for example?
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of longevity research, of course, is to make 100 year old body indistinguishable from a 20 year old body, not merely to "keep the heart beating".
That may be the long term ideal, practically though there's very little of significance modern medicine will do until you actually have an injury, disease or organ failure. If you take a reasonably healthy 80 year old to the hospital and say "What can you do to make him more like a 20 year old?" they wouldn't replacing aching bones or an aging heart and lungs and kidneys and liver, nor would they do anything about the poor eyesight, hearing or all the other senses that weaken with age. The primary effect of
Re: Bank them (Score:3)
On making people slightly less miserable for the 99% of their lifespan that's actually worth living. And providing palliative care to people who are dying, so they won't suffer needlessly. Or simply legalizing euthanasia so people can have the freedom to choose to die with dignity.
Re:Bank them (Score:5, Insightful)
Death is a part of life.
...for 93% of us.
With 7 billion people on the planet, and only 100 billion of us having ever lived, only 93% of us have died.
As part of the 7%, I'm keeping my hopes high.
Re:Bank them (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, science has just identified the thing that needs to be tricked. We just need fresh stem cells. I, for one, am going to assure that I get a steady supply of stem cells by eating a baby for breakfast each morning.
Re: (Score:3)
I, for one, am going to assure that I get a steady supply of stem cells by eating a baby for breakfast each morning.
I eat Little Debbies for breakfast. Not quite babies, but similarly soft n squishy inside. I'll prolly live forever.
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, am going to assure that I get a steady supply of stem cells by eating a baby for breakfast each morning.
Won't work. These would have your same ADN.
You can, however, create clones of yourself and eat one of THOSE babies every day. That should do the trick.
Re: (Score:2)
*...would NEED TO have your same ADN.
Re:Bank them (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.
False dichotomy. If we manage one day to make 100 year old bodies to be more like today's 60 year old bodies, you'll have a different option.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be more concerned about the brain, myself. No good having even a 30-year-old's body at 100 if you've gone back to the brain of a 2-year-old...
Re:Bank them (Score:4)
There will be no point to having a "youthful" old age if we will still become more conservative as we grow old, and in our misguided attempts to stay relevant, end up preventing the world from changing, just to keep things familiar.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Bank them (Score:4, Insightful)
Such is life in idiocratic paradise.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As more money is saved by long-lived individuals, the amount of money available for (capital) loans increases, driving down the interest rate (in a free society--one which doesn't have a central bank pretending it knows more about time preference of money than the market).
Lending money at interest is tied to capital creation. Capital creates wealth. It is natural that people should become wealthier as they grow older. Th
Re:Bank them (Score:4, Insightful)
I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick.
There isn't. Our bodies are machines, no more no less, and ultimately science will solve every riddle they pose. Soon, fifty or a hundred years from now, the first immortals will be born. Who knows, perhaps they already have been.
Re:Bank them (Score:4, Insightful)
, fifty or a hundred years from now, the first immortals will be born.
That would, IMHO, be an utter disaster for mankind. Human beings are really good at learning what their world is like when they are children, because they are more or less starting from scratch. What they absolutely suck at is adapting to change after they've figured all that out. We form our opinions and view of the world when we are growing up. We can see then with (relatively) unclouded eyes the way things are, and even reason out the way we think things ought to be. But that becomes relatively set. This is why Max Plank remarked:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
It isn't just science either, it's pretty much every realm of human thought. I was born into a society (1967) where it was accepted that black people should be kept away from white people, women were inferior to men in every way and belonged in the home, and "gay" was not a state of being, but a repulsive activity that needed to be suppressed at all costs. Its true that lot of people's minds changed since then, but by and large what happened is that the old folks who felt strongest about society staying that way died . Social conservatism is far more prominent with older people at pretty much every level you check.
While I'd like to think that all that was wrong with the 70's is gone from me, the fact is its all still lurking down in my head, because that's the world I was born into. The best I can hope for to personally advance society is to raise my own kids without my prejudices, and then when its just me left that remembers the early 70's I can die and all that horrible shit will die with me.
Anyone trying to "fix" this is an active threat to humanity.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are nothing more than a couple dollars worth of parts and some electrical/chemical interactions.
The fact that you believe otherwise is cute in the same way that a child believes the tooth fairy is real.
Re: (Score:2)
My thought upon reading this story was, "Oh, thank God!!"
I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick. I was beginning to fear that the medical community was going to try to force any level of existence to continue without regard to quality. Death is a part of life. I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.
That is a view and a choice that I can respect, but why should you cheer the possibility that no one be able to choose any other way? That those who want more life be denied it?
Like a lot of the elderly people you mention, I think I too would choose death over prolonged suffering, helplessness, and a lack of ability to accomplish much more than running the bills up for my family. But I don't think I would choose death until that was all I had to look forward to, and I would be happy for any medical advanc
Re: (Score:3)
What are are we allowed to live to? 30? Logan's Run for us?
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of species which live longer than humans.
Sure- death is part of life but if you could stretch your healthy years out 30 years, wouldn't that be a good thing?
Re:Bank them (Score:4, Interesting)
My grandfather just celebrated his 95th birthday, and my co-worker said, "I hope I get to be that age some day!" I replied that I surely did **NOT** want to ever arrive at that age, and he looked at me befuddled.
I asked, "Do you know any 95 year-olds?" No, he didn't. "Think about his life. All his friends are dead. All his brothers and sisters are dead. His kids are in their 70s and due to die soon. He can't drive. He can't walk without a walker. His breakfast is made up of more pills by volume than toast. He can't see well, and his hearing is worse even when he wears his hearing aids. He hasn't been laid in 30 years and never will be again. Pain is a constant and has been for years. He hasn't had a drink of wine in over a decade. He hasn't been able to travel since 1997. What kind of life is that?"
Mohamed was rather quiet for quite some time after that.
She was 115 (Score:5, Informative)
Since the summary didn't mention it, and I'm sure others were wondering.
Re:She was 115 (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the summary didn't mention it, and I'm sure others were wondering.
Ya. That first sentence could have been written: "When Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper died in 2005 at age 115, she was the oldest woman in the world."
Typing another 10 characters wouldn't have killed the submitter. And it would've spared many Slashdotters from puzzling through a tedious run-on sentence in the Wikipedia article.
Re: (Score:3)
This is good news... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only reading the summary of an article and not the article itself is one thing. Only reading half of a one line post is a new low. Further, I see a lot of pessimism on Slashdot regarding super-longevity. I don't get it.
Re:This is good news... (Score:4, Informative)
You don't understand that super-longevity would be bad both due to over-population and entrenched interests that will not allow progress, or you don't understand how hard a problem life extension is?
Re: (Score:3)
Also, at the pace that the science of super-longevity is unfolding, it is in parallel to, if not in tandem with, technologies that will allow ourselves to be f
Re: (Score:2)
A society wealthy enough to afford "super-longevity" would be wealthy enough that their problem is not overpopulation but UNDERpopulation.
Even without "super-longevity" we're already looking at a declining world population within the century.
Re: (Score:2)
And you don't understand that the parts of the world where there is enough wealth to artificially increase life spans is also not overpopulated and in fact in most cases have a shrinking population. In many parts of the world this is already leading to several problems in society including caring for the elderly - improvements in the understanding of the aging diseases which is a requirement for "super-longevity" will also improve this situation.
People that don't have enough money to get their malaria medic
Re: (Score:2)
Further, I see a lot of pessimism on Slashdot regarding super-longevity. I don't get it.
I can think of a few reasons:
- living a long time is one thing; living a long time old and infirm is another.
- if significant numbers of people stop dying, and more people are being born everyday, on a planet with finite resources.. you see the problem.
- wealth envy
- other reasons that do not immediately spring to mind
Re: (Score:2)
If that's not enough then read the all of my replies.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, you didn't ask for solutions, you just said you didn't understand the pessimism.
I was trying to help you with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Not an upper limit (Score:5, Informative)
If you live long enough most of your cells end up dieing or critically damaged by the formation of inclusion bodies caused from misfolded proteins. As far as we can tell the cells are otherwise fine they are just slowly accumulating that damage over time. This is also what alzheimer's is. The problem is that misfolded proteins are kind of contagious to other proteins in the cell and that is what leads to the inclusion bodies.
We are making progress though on being able to clean out the inclusion bodies. Your cells do have the ability to take them apart but somehow they end up not doing it. Give us some time though and we will fix this problem also and clean out these inclusion bodies in all of your cells and then your cells will work much better.
The other issue we need to fix is activating telomerase to extend our telomeres. The basic issue is that natural selection does not really select for anything after reproductive age so humans are filled with a bunch of small defects and we are getting better at repairing the damage. I really look forward to what can be done with CRISPR-CAS9 to repair DNA damage and replaced damaged genes.
Oh, so somebody's an expert? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
He's just here as a Vorlon observer, being a smart ass is part of the job but he needs to work on being more cryptic. Oh and if we actually discover the formula for immortality, duck before the fireworks start.
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing is a three-edged sword.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, I know an easier way. Saw it on television. You find one of these pale coldish people and have them bite you.
There is a major side effect, but if you're a true /. person you'll hardly ever notice...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well they get a mix of DNA to make a new person.
After the egg gets fertilized, it gains a new unique genetic structure to both the parents. So in essence it is new again.
Re:Not an upper limit (Score:5, Funny)
One solution would also be to stop people reproducing until after a certain age.
I look forward to the movie based on this premise, Logan's Booty Run.
Re: (Score:2)
People dumb enough to be duped into believing some kind of faith that tells them they're going to be "renewed" being exploded to make room for the rest... I could start to like that concept.
Give it some time and religion or similar mental defects are eliminated purely by evolution.
Re: (Score:3)
Strange conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
I find the conclusion that there is an absolute limit to the human life span because at some point the stem cells producing white blood cell all die out quite strange.
A few centuries ago, we could have concluded that there is an absolute limit to human life span because at some point someone can't eat anymore while he lost all his teeth. Any similar logical train of though could lead to the same conclusion.
And now, what if you find out why the cells die and manage to prevent it? Then the next thing that kills us will limit our life span, until we find out how to fix that as well. Absolute limits are difficult to set.
Re:Strange conclusion (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Multivac is on it.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope it has sufficient data for a meaningful answer!
Re: (Score:2)
If you ask Google Now how to reverse entropy, it has the appropriate response.
Best easter egg ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we need to find a workaround for that limitation sooner or later. If we don't, it will be the end of mankind. We do have a few other challenges to work on before that though. It would suck to find a solution to the death of the universe only to have life on Earth wiped out be a meteor before the other solution could be implemented.
Re: (Score:2)
I like your argument and agree with your conclusions, but dentures are millennia old at least. http://www.sciencemuseum.org.u... [sciencemuseum.org.uk]
The conclusion is valid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they might of came up with different reasons, but the absolute maximum age has been constant for all of recorded history. The ancient Egyptians might not of known about stem cells but they topped out at a few years over 100 just like the rest of us (though I am sure a more of their hundred year olds were eating paste in the end).
Re:Strange conclusion (Score:5, Funny)
Do you know about soup?
Who Wants To Live Forever (Score:4, Funny)
Who dares to love forever,
When love must die.
---Queen
Re: (Score:2)
Me.
Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
longevity worth it? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Avoid ... alcohol
But then longevity isn't worth it!
Re: (Score:2)
Just because medicine can keep my body alive an additional 20 years does not mean I would welcome that if my mind is gone or if my joints are all shot or if I have to rely on a mountain of daily pills or therapy to get going. I look at it as a Quality vs Quantity of life.
Of course I want to live a long time and experience many things. I will do what I can to extend this to the point where I c
Re: (Score:3)
That's more an indication of how out of shape I was in my earlier life than anything else though.
Re: (Score:2)
Very Old News: Genesis 6:3 (Score:3, Interesting)
Genesis 6:3 says in the New Living Translation:
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years."
So they know what to work on.... (Score:3)
It seems that if they can figure out how to reduce or stop the "stem cell exhaustion" then you probably could significantly extend a persons lifespan, problem is you need to do it early in life. the old rich guy will be too late, he will stay old rich guy. But start with a newborn and suddenly things change. if you can even reduce the exhaustion rate by a tiny 20% at birth, you are looking at a 20 year lifespan extension from a 100 year life, not a lot but the benefits would be throughout the life. the no longer healing as well when you hit 35, the feeling not as fast when you hit 40... etc.. Imagine the regenerative abilities you had as a kid, deep nasty cut healed within days, at 45 a deep nasty cut heals in a few weeks. extending the super healing of the body from stopping in the teens to stopping in the late 20's would be remarkable.
And that is if you only find a way to slow the burnout, if you found a way to have stem cells regenerate themselves, I dont think you found immortality, but you would have 70 year olds with the body of 40 year olds but with 30 years more wisdom.
My question is what new diseases will we discover? I am sure there are things lurking that we call harmless, but maybe have a 70 year gestation period....
Re: (Score:2)
say the geeks who are always buying computer and electronic parts
but that's not consuming
Re: (Score:2)
That's not consuming. That's ... that's ... investing!
At one time in the future, these gadgets will be really rare and expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
You go ahead I will be right there! Trust me!
Re: (Score:2)
"Millionaires" - heh (Score:3)
>> Millionaires will live forever
Not sure you've been keeping up with the cost of living, but you pretty much have to have a million dollars in the bank to even think about retiring these days. ($1M divided by 20 - a common rule of thumb for maintaining a nest egg in retirement - is just $50K/yr.)
Re: (Score:2)
>> Millionaires will live forever
Not sure you've been keeping up with the cost of living, but you pretty much have to have a million dollars in the bank to even think about retiring these days. ($1M divided by 20 - a common rule of thumb for maintaining a nest egg in retirement - is just $50K/yr.)
Actually, because that million is earning interest while you are drawing down on it, even at 5%API, you should be able to draw around $80K/yr for 20 years.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Where they hell are you getting 5%API right now in a retirement disbursing account? At retirement you are looking at money markets for most of your assets and you'll be lucky to get 2%. A million isn't enough to retire on for most people anymore. Millionaires aren't the 1%, they are the majority of the middle class.
Re: (Score:2)
Where they hell are you getting 5%API right now in a retirement disbursing account? At retirement you are looking at money markets for most of your assets and you'll be lucky to get 2%. A million isn't enough to retire on for most people anymore. Millionaires aren't the 1%, they are the majority of the middle class.
If you are retired with a million dollars in your retirement account, one would hope it isn't sitting in a money market. Even AAA+ corporate, munis and treasuries will get you around 4% today and are considered safe. In addition, you would keep some of your funds in the stock market, maybe 20%. 5% would probably be low.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait. Millionaires are the middle class now? *Looks at bank account which is FAR from $1 million* I guess I can't afford to be in the middle class anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
At retirement. Sum of assets, likely including home equity which you could (in theory) draw from in retirement via reverse mortgage.
$250,000 house, fully paid off (you probably bought it for $175,000 30 years prior and paid $375,000 for it over 30 years including interest)
$500,000 401k after diligently saving since you paid off your college loans around age 30
$250,000 in IRA, Roth IRA, misc. stocks and bonds, bullion, etc. which you stashed away whenever you could
If you don't have that and are under 70, yo
Re:"Millionaires" - heh (Score:4, Informative)
>> Actually, because that million is earning interest while you are drawing down on it, even at 5%API, you should be able to draw around $80K/yr for 20 years
Most advisors recommend calculating return at 4% (not that you can get that today in CDs)...and trying to avoid completely eroding the principal in twenty years. By the time you get through that math, you end up with the popular "rule-of-twenty". E.g.,
http://www.getrichslowly.org/b... [getrichslowly.org]
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/2... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not so sure that prolongs your life. If history is any indicator, such things usually led to significantly shortened lifespans. Usually involving mobs with pitchforks.
Re: (Score:2)