Ageing Process is Unstoppable, Finds Unprecedented Study (theguardian.com) 202
Immortality and everlasting youth are the stuff of myths, according to new research which may finally end the eternal debate about whether we can live for ever. From a report: Backed by governments, business, academics and investors in an industry worth $110bn -- and estimated to be worth $610bn by 2025 -- scientists have spent decades attempting to harness the power of genomics and artificial intelligence to find a way to prevent or even reverse ageing. But an unprecedented study has now confirmed that we probably cannot slow the rate at which we get older because of biological constraints. The study, by an international collaboration of scientists from 14 countries and including experts from the University of Oxford, set out to test the "invariant rate of ageing" hypothesis, which says that a species has a relatively fixed rate of ageing from adulthood.
"Our findings support the theory that, rather than slowing down death, more people are living much longer due to a reduction in mortality at younger ages," said Jose Manuel Aburto from Oxford's Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science, who analysed age-specific birth and death data spanning centuries and continents. "We compared birth and death data from humans and non-human primates and found this general pattern of mortality was the same in all of them," said Aburto. "This suggests that biological, rather than environmental factors, ultimately control longevity. The statistics confirmed, individuals live longer as health and living conditions improve which leads to increasing longevity across an entire population. Nevertheless, a steep rise in death rates, as years advance into old age, is clear to see in all species."
"Our findings support the theory that, rather than slowing down death, more people are living much longer due to a reduction in mortality at younger ages," said Jose Manuel Aburto from Oxford's Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science, who analysed age-specific birth and death data spanning centuries and continents. "We compared birth and death data from humans and non-human primates and found this general pattern of mortality was the same in all of them," said Aburto. "This suggests that biological, rather than environmental factors, ultimately control longevity. The statistics confirmed, individuals live longer as health and living conditions improve which leads to increasing longevity across an entire population. Nevertheless, a steep rise in death rates, as years advance into old age, is clear to see in all species."
Making the most of everything. (Score:5, Funny)
Gosh darn it! Guess we'll just have to start living every day like it mattered and start being nice to each other.
Re:Making the most of everything. (Score:4, Funny)
What's the point? You're gonna die anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh darn it! Guess we'll just have to start living every day like it mattered and start being nice to each other.
Well, I think that's a reasonable response from most likely the vast majority of people. We're a hyper-social species, hard-wired to cooperate & entirely dependent on each other. Reciprocal altruism is our predisposed default attitude but this can be skewed & distorted by the cultures in which we live & some cultures distort it more than others. Let's see what the small minority of misanthropes make of this research.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope it catches on.
Re: Making the most of everything. (Score:2)
Well something will certainly get caught.
What exactly does this put to bed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What exactly does this put to bed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of modern science was once the realm of science fiction.
But most it of was obviously within reason.
Re: (Score:2)
...and don't forget that "modern science" has killed off more sci-fi ideas than it has confirmed.
We're not travelling the stars, we probably never will. There's a tiny chance we might make it all the way to Mars but otherwise we're stuck here on a tiny blue dot.
(and we're busy destroying that blue dot like there's no tomorrow...)
Re: What exactly does this put to bed? (Score:5, Interesting)
It has done no such thing. Traveling the stars is pretty possible, it just will going to be slower than we'd like if new Physics isn't discovered that allows it to go faster, but that's it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We're not travelling the stars, we probably never will. There's a tiny chance we might make it all the way to Mars but otherwise we're stuck here on a tiny blue dot.
Very well then. Please produce the links to valid peer reviewed source that state we are not traveling to the stars. While your at it add a few that tell us that we can not travel to Mars.
These links must be from accredited, peer reviews sources. Wikipedia articles and link to youtube videos probably will not count but as usual we will peer review your sources and determine what is valid and what isn't.
Looking forward to your reply so we can finally put this space travel nonsense behind us.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of modern science was once the realm of science fiction.
And within my own lifetime and memory. That is why I have no fear of the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What exactly does this put to bed? (Score:5, Informative)
That is what this puts to bed: the idea that extending lifespan is limitless
It does no such thing. The headline of this article is complete bullshit, and the linked abstract flat out says nothing is "put to bed." The study is just saying that improving living conditions doesnâ(TM)t extend lifespan, it merely prevents premature death.
Re: What exactly does this put to bed? (Score:4, Interesting)
That is what this puts to bed: the idea that extending lifespan is limitless
It does no such thing. The headline of this article is complete bullshit, and the linked abstract flat out says nothing is "put to bed." The study is just saying that improving living conditions doesnâ(TM)t extend lifespan, it merely prevents premature death.
Of course. We can increase the average age of death by several methods. Lower child mortality, increase safety, artificially support people with drugs. Artificially support people with machinery.
That's an average though. What we haven't done, is increase the limits. To do that, we need to deal with the natural tendency to degenerate, the HayFlick limit. Then we have to deal with some of the things that simply wear out, like the skeletal system. Ever see those folks at the very limits? Most are living a shell of a life, often bedridden, or they get propped up in a chair so the reporters can ask them what they did that allowed them to live so long.
In the end, so many people, especially the young, are confusing length of life with quality of life.
I for one, kind of look forward to the long dreamless sleep. Not now, but eventually when the pain gets too much.
Re: (Score:3)
Today, that's what we can do and that's what happens.
However, the study doesn't show that the ageing process cannot possibly be stopped. It's a lot of mathematical analysis of statistics of past occurrence, not some examination of biology. It suggests that any changes in our diet, in having shelter, climate control, less average working hours and less arduous work hasn't caused humans to age more slowly or quickly. They couldn't find anything that has already shown an effect on ageing so there's no histo
Re: What exactly does this put to bed? (Score:4, Insightful)
I was about to say nearly the same thing....
The study indicates nothing about the ability to extend life, it only conveys that natural life has a limit in all species, and better living conditions doesn't extend that limit, it just lets more people reach it.
If we want to extend this limit "unnaturally", we can. But it would have to be using means that are not at natures disposal. Cellular regeneration technology, genetic manipulation and stem cell treatments are being researched which might eventually show some success with this.
That said, I would not want to live forever, if my body would continue to decline. Any technology that only allows us to live longer, not better, would likely not make people WANT to live forever (recent studies show that the older people are, the less likely they are to want to live forever - So maybe there is a psychological or physiological component aswell)
Re: (Score:3)
The study indicates nothing about the ability to extend life,
If we want to extend this limit "unnaturally", we can.
"Is it possible to learn this power?"
"Not from a statistician...."
Re: (Score:2)
Extending your life to a point where science can take over and carry you onto the singularity is immortality, or more precisely a theoretical path to immortality.
Honestly if people want to believe in the singularity and immortality, I'm not going to convince them otherwise. It's no strange than the hundreds of other religions that promise immorality. And may indirectly result in a better scientific understanding of rare aging disorders and improve some lives, even if it doesn't help billionaires.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's part of why the headline is so misleading and the journalist clearly doesn't understand the study. The result was not "unprecedented," it was expected.
Personally, I absolutely believe that humans will eventually achieve "immortality" (of course, that doesn't mean infinite lives because there are constraints on the life of the planet, sun, and universe) but it probably won't happen in our lifetime.
I don't know if people would accept consciousness transfer as an acceptable solution because that
Re:What exactly does this put to bed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: What exactly does this put to bed? (Score:2)
Is this just the nature of replicative degeneration? The more times a cell copies itself the more prone to errors it will have?
So lengthened telomeres will most likely not work?
Re: (Score:2)
The result was not "unprecedented," it was expected.
They said the study was unprecedented, not the result. But, unprecedented doesn't really mean too much, as it just means never done(or known) before. You could argue that most studies, omitting ones done to verify another, would technically be unprecedented. It just sounds better than "new study."
Telomeres are a clock not a solution (Score:3)
extending telomeres using nanomachines is an engineering challenge
We already know how to lengthen telomeres, we don't need to invent nanomachines because the body already provides a complex called telomerase. We even know how to force it active, if you look up cell lines you'll knows many of them are labelled TERT because someone has engineered in an extra copy of these gene.
In nature the body runs this telemere lengthening program in stem cells and turns it off in terminally differentiated cells or when the cell is damaged in some way. The great mystery is really why an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to transfer consciousness, you have to find it first.
Good luck with that.
Re:What exactly does this put to bed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Was someone under the impression that people were looking to halt or reverse aging merely by putting people in an optimal natural environment? Mice have had drastically extended natural lifespans in some studies which included artificial manipulation of biological processes.
Someone? A hella lot of people are frantic about extending lifespan. There are people who are literaly semi starving themselves because of some dude's research on Mice. I know a lot of young people who believe that they are going to be the first immortal generation. And there are those who claim that if we can make it to 2050, we shall be immortal from then on. https://www.news.com.au/techno... [news.com.au]
When in fact, we are not physically designed to live even as long as we live today. collagen/calcium phosphate is no material to make an immortal or even a multi hundred year human out of.
We see the concept that somehow the young now are the first generation that will not die. People trying to extend the age of adulthood to 30 https://bigthink.com/mind-brai... [bigthink.com] P We see the virtual orders to modern women to delay childbearing until their fertility is declining - there are many who believe that women should not think about bearing children until their mid 40's, when they are a lot closer to expensive fertility treatments, and menopause than optimum childbearing age. Frankly, I find this long delayed adulthood thing rather disturbing on all fronts. These people will discover that they age and die just like the earlier generations.
When in fact, all of our efforts have allowed more people to artificially live longer, but there has been no change on the lifespan limits. There are no 400, 300, or even 200 year old humans.
Re: (Score:2)
has now confirmed that we probably cannot slow... (Score:5, Funny)
well at least they're finally almost maybe sort of certain they think
Re: (Score:3)
well at least they're finally almost maybe sort of certain they think
Backed by governments, business, academics and investors in an industry worth $110bn -- and estimated to be worth $610bn by 2025...
According to Greed, they have another 500 billion to suck from gullible idiots before coming to any kind of no-shit-sherlock conclusion.
Overstated (Score:5, Insightful)
So the study says "Our results support the invariant rate of ageing hypothesis, implying biological constraints on how much the human rate of ageing can be slowed."
Far cry from "Ageing Process is Unstoppable, Finds Unprecedented Study". Sensationalism...
FTFY (Score:3)
"Our results support the invariant rate of ageing hypothesis, implying biological constraints on how much the human rate of ageing can be slowed."
Far cry from "Ageing Process is Unstoppable, Finds Unprecedented Study". Sensationalism...
Indeed.
"Ageing Process is Unstoppable, Finds Misconstrued Study"
this ends nothing (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't "reengineering the genome" just another word for evolution? What do you think it's been doing all this time?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Though it could be seen as a component of the evolution process. It would replace the process by which variants are randomly created, but not the selection process.
Reengineering the genome would of course be a competitive effort. Many people will have very different ideas as to what is correct. If we manage to escape our solar system, it is possible that we will diverge down many branches as a result of this. If not, the number of branches will be constrained by competition. Specializations might surviv
Re: (Score:2)
No. Though it could be seen as a component of the evolution process. It would replace the process by which variants are randomly created, but not the selection process.
Reengineering the genome would of course be a competitive effort. Many people will have very different ideas as to what is correct. If we manage to escape our solar system, it is possible that we will diverge down many branches as a result of this. If not, the number of branches will be constrained by competition. Specializations might survive, but multiple generalizations would more likely clash till a winner is picked by evolution.
Assuming you are aspiring to the plasma life idea, as an academic question, what do you think the skeletal structure of the millennial length lifespan people will be. Because Collagen and Calcium Phosphate are not up to the task, and osteoarthritis is not a genetic condition, and doesn't even cover the present slightly enhanced average age of death. A few other parts that really degenerate are the nervous system, the vagus nerve especially. These things aren't trivial. to mess with.
Maybe we'll grow a lot
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of growing clones and doing brain transplants, I predict we'll conquer the tissue scarring issues preventing human regeneration and trigger regeneration of body parts in situ - eventually using carefully repaired stem cells instead of the aged ones. I don't see a need to make the existing parts last much longer. For organs, there may be some need to generate some things outside of the body and transplant them in, but in most cases it would seem better to grow new parts next to old ones before causin
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of growing clones and doing brain transplants, I predict we'll conquer the tissue scarring issues preventing human regeneration and trigger regeneration of body parts in situ - eventually using carefully repaired stem cells instead of the aged ones.
One of the most ironic aspects of all this is say we do give ourselves a 1000 year lifespan. It will seem just as short as what we have now. Drive at 100 mph for a while, you get used to it. Fly in a jet at 500 MPH, and it looks like you're crawling. Even the ISS videos look like they are in slow motion if you aren't told the speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Specializations might survive, but multiple generalizations would more likely clash till a winner is picked by evolution.
Evolution doesn't really "pick", until recently it has been bound by natural selection, though in our case selective selection may be more at play.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you think evolution has a particular intention and design behind its direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just restoring your own genome from a backup file.
Re: (Score:2)
But the ransomware gangs keep hitting me.
How does this account for recent developments (Score:2)
Bullshit. (Score:5, Interesting)
A dog ages much faster than a man.
An elephant ages somewhat slower than a man.
This is obviously a biological process that can be edited, sped up, or delayed.
And if, preposterously, evolution has somehow crafted man to be the MOST long lived creature (within our shape- perhaps the other creatures that live longer than us have properties we cannot adopt, such as cold bloodedness, or a very slow heartbeat)- then, even THEN, there's the obvious direct intervention, wherein cells could be edited to be younger, and even spread whatever is needed to behave in a young way to other cells.
No, I'm sure that this study, and whomever published it, won't help on this axis. But that doesn't mean that there is no help on this axis, or that things are impossible. We KNOW, with absolute CERTAINTY, that they are not, because we KNOW, with absolute CERTAINTY that this is ultimately a physics and/or engineering problem AND NO OTHER THING... which should be good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
You guys act like life is a computer program.
All biology is just chemistry. All chemistry is just physics. All physics is just math.
Re: (Score:2)
All physics is just math.
No. Theoretical physics, at times, is. But it has the constraint that ultimately to do anything that matters (so excluding string theory for now), it has to bow down to experimental physics. Which is not at all "just math".
Physics is studied in mathematical terms. One needs to know a lot mathematics to achieve much in physics. But "just math" includes all the things physically impossible but mathematically interesting - which are explicitly outside of the domain of physics.
Re: (Score:2)
experimental physics is solving math with crude tools. but sometimes it's all the tools we have. if you can't express you experimental results as a model then you're probably doing something wrong or at least have a few more steps to remaining.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, mathematics is used a lot. But I was replying to
All physics is just math.
Re: (Score:2)
And you would be wrong. My earlier quip is the whole and complete fact of the matter. There is clearly no room for nuance beyond my well-phrased adage. It's not clear why you chose to debate this. Maybe you're pedantic beyond repair. Maybe you don't understand a simple joke. There is no way to ever know.
Re: (Score:2)
And you would be wrong
Which part specifically is wrong ? That mathematics is used a lot ? That physics is constrained by physical reality ? Something else ?
1.
My earlier quip is the whole and complete fact of the matter
2.
Maybe you don't understand a simple joke
So your "quip" is the whole and complete fact of the matter as well as a joke ? Or something else is going on there ?
Re: (Score:2)
physics is math does not mean all math is physics, that is your mistake, you conflated those two.
I didn't conflate the two. You probably misread, and as the utter lack of capitalization in your post shows, you are probably hasty and/or careless in multiple aspects of your life so it is not surprising.
Re: (Score:2)
impossible is difficult to prove.
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhere along the line of how old sperm and egg cells become a new blastocyst life (well, ok. Sperm is relatively young and multiplies continuously. But egg follicles continue to agree throughout life).
Re: (Score:2)
> How do you edit cells so they are younger?
Ok, so, here's the fun part- I don't know. More relevantly, I don't have to know. If the topic is "is X possible", and I can demonstrate that all the constituent smaller pieces making up X are possible, then it follows that X is possible. That's the case with anything related to a cell, or aging. Perhaps a set of chemicals, or tiny robots? It doesn't matter, because I don't need to design or even get very close to what is what here, because we are discussi
Old news (Score:2)
What a garbage headline (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like saying "we did a study that shows that nowhere in nature does an animal fly higher than 37,000 feet. Therefore it is impossible for humans to fly any higher than that. Also, space flight is therefore impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
No, since they're talking about what the body alone can do. Are you going to claim humans with leg muscles alone will someday jump three meters straight up from a solid surface?
Hint, they can't and never will.
No surprise lifespan of a primate can't be lengthened, no human is going to live 130 years.
Re: What a garbage headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You're still being silly, the human body is incapable of flight just as it can't even jump 2 meters. The human body alone can never fly, it is correct to conclude it can't and won't.
Re: What a garbage headline (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you going to claim humans with leg muscles alone will someday jump three meters straight up from a solid surface?
Hint, they can't and never will.
Ok, please try not interrupting [goodreads.com] people trying to do it.
Some might have done it on the Moon or in denser "air". Some might be able to do it on Earth and atmospheric pressure - given some help in genetics, training, nutrition, or something else.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is an impossibility for the human anatomy to jump up 3 meters from the ground. The absolute limit is less than 2 meters for hard scientific reasons. No amount of training or nutrition can change that. If you want to talk about genetic engineering, then we are talking about something not human.
Re: What a garbage headline (Score:2)
No, it will depend on the exact generic change, and the definition of "human" at the time. There is some variation in the genetics of the existing 7 or i billion humans, all are called "humans". If the amount of genetic change required for 3 meters jump is within that range, it will be unreasonable to define them as non-humans. But unreasonability is of course not ruled out.
Re: (Score:2)
fallacy, other parts of the high jumper's body are closer to the ground during the jump. The world's record for a vertical leap is 1.7 meters. No human can jump and get 2 meters from the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
You do not understand Science. The usual limitations do of course apply, even if you are unable to see them. The main one is "Barring extraordinary discoveries...". Bit the thing is that extraordinary discovery are rare and have gotten exceptionally rare the better our understanding of physical reality has gotten.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the post's title, I think it makes it clear he's criticizing the headline, not the study. He did lose this clarity when he said, "we did a study. . .," but I give him the benefit of the doubt. As I interpreted his post, I fully agree: journalist takes a mundane study and finds a way to mischaracterize it to create a sensationalist headline.
Unfortunately, it worked. It's here on /. and it was in my Apple News feed. I'm sure in the next couple days someone will say to me, "did you hear about th
There was a story 5 days ago on /. that said (Score:2)
only 33% of people in some small study would even want to be immortal. What's the problem? We have too many fucking people already.
Re: (Score:2)
And the problem is exactly those fucking* people [youtu.be].
* not referring to India, but to people in general making too many babies.**
** Remember when we didn't have to put such disclaimers on jokes?***
*** Pepperidge Farm Remembers.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet that most people, if given a choice, would choose to live longer than a typical human lifespan. Most people just don't want to be a 130 year old vegetable.
You are going to die (Score:2)
Just accept it and deal with it. Also stop wasting your time and money on those that claim to have "solutions", from the religious fuckups ("you are going to die but if you give us enough money and bow to our stupid rituals, it will be ok") to the corpse freezers and uploaders that are in no way any better. Also accept that nobody knows what happens after you die, despite a lot of assholes claiming they do. On the plus side, you cannot actually fail at it, everybody has managed to do it so far. So really, n
Here's a precedent for you. (Score:2, Interesting)
Trying to cover up the truth? (Score:5, Interesting)
What about all the research being done on telomeres, such as this one? [stanford.edu] Are the rich elite trying to cover up the truth so only they can be immortal?
The article states "The procedure, which involves the use of a modified type of RNA..." - we've had a lot of progress in the last year with mRNA development, maybe they really found the fountain of youth and are now trying to suppress it from the public?
Trust no o{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit. I read your joke, and then I read the very next post. The guy below you said pretty much the same thing but he wasn't joking.
I have such little faith in elites and media (Score:2)
That honestly this headline has me thinking the exact opposite.
"They've finally solved it, but they can't tell the common populace"
It's very much in the best interest of the elites to ONLY have a small fraction of people living forever. If anything they need to be rid of 95% of us to have the planet, maybe, maybe survive.
Immortality by accident (Score:2)
Few other species, though, exhibit humanity's rather extreme attitude towards injury and disability. Lose a limb? We can bolt on a mechanical replacement. Heart won't beat regularly? We can install a device to force it to beat regularly. Damage or destroy a vital organ? We can cut one out of a corpse and use it as a replacement. Or not even a corpse, sometimes we take them from willing living donors. Problem's caused by a genetic error? We figured out how to create a virus that basically replaces the errone
Re: (Score:2)
"Few" species?
You know of another one on this planet that does shit like that?
I mean, "few" technically only means "not many", but typically implies more than one,.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is fine (Score:2)
I'm hoping for a long long life, but I could see how at some point, enough would be enough.
I mean, I love life, but like good bourbon, which I also love, there's a point at which you've had your fill.
FALSE - Aging IS reversible (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Despite the headline, and even a couple of similarly suggestive sentences in the study, the study is simply an in depth analysis of statistics of large historical populations. It shows that nothing has previously been experienced by a statistically significant population of the large number of primate species, including humans, that has affected ageing. It really says nothing about what we might be able to find in the future, it simply suggests we won't find some magical natural diet that slows ageing, or
Bull headline, study does not say that. (Score:3)
Another case of some journalist writing a headline to attract attention. The actual study found that aging was determined by biology not environment. That is, changing your diet and exercise does not slow aging. Sorry, vegans still die of old age. Most of it centered on studying populations, not studying specific factors.
This clearly left open the scientific methods of slowing aging that we are still researching. Specifically telomerase, stem cell, and cloning techniques are excluded by this study.
Personally I fully expect that I will die the day before they announce scientific de-aging. Maybe even when they announce it, but before it becomes available.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Studies in Australia and the UK show vegan has a minimal effect on life expectancy. While it does decrease the risk of dying from certain things (heart disease), they apparently get other diseases instead. Diabetes in particular.
Not even counting the much higher odds of dying after getting punched in the face.
Jackie Gleason and Art Carney already settled this (Score:2)
Correlation is not causation (Score:3)
"We compared birth and death data from humans and non-human primates and found this general pattern of mortality was the same in all of them," said Aburto. "This suggests that biological, rather than environmental factors, ultimately control longevity."
Statistical analysis on the current situation doesn't prove that it's impossible to manipulate the biological factors. 500 years ago, nobody was flying in the air, so a comparable study would have proven that we'd never fly.
Thats what they want you to think (Score:2)
Flying impossible finds unprecedented comment (Score:2)
The researcher is sane, but the newspaper is not (Score:2)
As we show here, improvements in the environment are unlikely to translate into a substantial reduction in the rate of ageing, b1, or in the dramatic increase in lifespan that would result from such a change. It remains to be seen if future advances in medicine can overcome the biological constraints that we have identified here, and achieve what evolution has not.
So the researchers do understand what they are doing. But the news reporters distort things to the point of stupidity.
Misleading at best (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can two thirty year olds come together (ha) and make a zero year old baby?
Because some cells in a thirty year old are in better shape (equivalent to younger) than others.
On the male side, multiple processes screen out genetically damaged cells so that the sperm that manages to reach the egg is quite clean.
On the female side, eggs are made very early in the woman's life, before significant damage has occurred.
Then you start building a new human from a single cell largely free of genetic damage.
If significant damage manages to slip through, it usually comes out early in the embryo'
Re: (Score:2)
On the female side, eggs are made very early in the woman's life, before significant damage has occurred.
This has actually been found to be incorrect, ovaries keep making egg cells:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
The person's point was that the fact that we evolved a specific mechanism that is ageless across generations, showing that ageing is not necessarily some fundamental limitation that we can't possibly address. The study is an analysis of historical data, so it simply shows that there's nothing that has already been experienced by a noticeable portion of a population that appears to impact ageing one w
Re: (Score:2)
Sure nobody wants to live with an old and fragile body, but if you could continue to live with the body of your 25-year-old self, it would be quite a different decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I last talked with my dad about this- somewhere in 2008-2009- that was not at all his take, and he was in his early 60s at the time.
This dumb angle where you pretend that life extension is about being miserable longer is just absurd. Any meaningful way to extend human life will not just extend the nursing home years, it will extend the college years, the 40s, the 30s. Just like these stages of aging take much longer in humans than, say, rats or dogs. If a creature with a 5 year lifespan was asked "w
Re: (Score:2)
Many slashdotters wish they could live as a youth for at least 150 years imagining they'd have better chance of not being a basement dwelling incel, but sadly that's not the case.
Re: (Score:2)