Anti-ageing 'supermodel granny' drug extends life in mice by 25%(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Anti-ageing 'supermodel granny' drug extends life in mice by 25%
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv2gr3x3xkno
50 comments
Assuming the drug adds another 20 years of quality life, the impact on social program financing would be very good. As is, the average person spends, roughly ~56% of human life being net-productive (20 learning, 45 working, 15 retired). Add 20 healthy years, and most folks will keep working, which would raise the share of productive years to ~65%. If the treatment is expensive, then only net-productive individuals would be able to afford it, meaning we would gain the benefit of contributors contributing for longer, without net-recipients receiving for longer.
This would also allow folks another 20 years of planning/saving for retirement, which could greatly improve the quality of those years for the average retiree, but probably won't.
The biggest social impact of this drug, I think, would be its affect of the wealth gap. Another 20 years of compounding market returns would buoy the net worth of the 30% who make up the "upper class". An ever-increasing number of people would be able to achieve financial "escape velocity" by building nest-eggs which can sustain them indefinitely via 3% withdrawals, allowing them to retire "early" (i.e. before the new "standard" retirement age of 80). Folks who speed-run their careers and retire in their 40s-50s could enjoy 50 or 60 years of retirement! Inheritances would rise dramatically, but come later in life. This would also result in a backlash, of course. Envy is the oldest and most powerful organizing "principle", and politicians will happily use this new prosperity to generate enmity for their own purposes, just as they always have.
My main concern would be the dysgenic impact of such a thing. If it becomes generally available, it will no doubt encourage thinking folks delay having children even more, while also granting another decade of fertility to the "oops another baby" cohort. It seems clear that this would significantly accelerate our decline toward idiocracy.
This would also allow folks another 20 years of planning/saving for retirement, which could greatly improve the quality of those years for the average retiree, but probably won't.
The biggest social impact of this drug, I think, would be its affect of the wealth gap. Another 20 years of compounding market returns would buoy the net worth of the 30% who make up the "upper class". An ever-increasing number of people would be able to achieve financial "escape velocity" by building nest-eggs which can sustain them indefinitely via 3% withdrawals, allowing them to retire "early" (i.e. before the new "standard" retirement age of 80). Folks who speed-run their careers and retire in their 40s-50s could enjoy 50 or 60 years of retirement! Inheritances would rise dramatically, but come later in life. This would also result in a backlash, of course. Envy is the oldest and most powerful organizing "principle", and politicians will happily use this new prosperity to generate enmity for their own purposes, just as they always have.
My main concern would be the dysgenic impact of such a thing. If it becomes generally available, it will no doubt encourage thinking folks delay having children even more, while also granting another decade of fertility to the "oops another baby" cohort. It seems clear that this would significantly accelerate our decline toward idiocracy.
> If the treatment is expensive, then only net-productive individuals would be able to afford it, meaning we would gain the benefit of contributors contributing for longer, without net-recipients receiving for longer.
Because rich people are "net-productive" and poor people are "net-recipients"?
This is wrong on so many levels. And even today rich people live on average longer. Can't see the benefit myself.
Because rich people are "net-productive" and poor people are "net-recipients"?
This is wrong on so many levels. And even today rich people live on average longer. Can't see the benefit myself.
having money is a sign of being productive, on the whole
Having money is a sign of being able to extract wealth from the current economic system.
I know many productive people who never learnt that hard work doesn't equal good money.
It's actually typically a sign of your parents having money, above all else.
People who know how to make money pass this knowledge on to their kids. People who don't, can't. This shouldn't be surprising.
Actually, they largely pass the money on to their kids.
> Because rich people are "net-productive" and poor people are "net-recipients"
Yes, in the context at hand this is obviously, objectively true. Poor folks earn little, "pay" negative income taxes, and are eligible for lavish (relative to their contributions) benefits, thus they pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits, making them net recipients from social programs. Some to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars per year. We used to call them leeches--we should probably start doing it again, frankly.
Meanwhile others pay large amounts of taxes without receiving any services beyond those which are forced on them by the state (which are generally a raw deal), making them massive net contributors.
It's not "wrong", it's the basic arithmetic that undergirds your beloved welfare state. Ignore it at your peril.
Yes, in the context at hand this is obviously, objectively true. Poor folks earn little, "pay" negative income taxes, and are eligible for lavish (relative to their contributions) benefits, thus they pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits, making them net recipients from social programs. Some to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars per year. We used to call them leeches--we should probably start doing it again, frankly.
Meanwhile others pay large amounts of taxes without receiving any services beyond those which are forced on them by the state (which are generally a raw deal), making them massive net contributors.
It's not "wrong", it's the basic arithmetic that undergirds your beloved welfare state. Ignore it at your peril.
Again you are extremely wrong on this. However it is clear that you hold such misanthropic views that I won't be able to make you even slightly consider a perspective based on the value of equality and human dignity.
I think you are right. If you get 20 extra years with the quality of an average 50 year old, I think it's a good thing.
Many countries are seeing the birth rate decline. If people could extend their life with 20 healthy and productive years it would change everything. Suddenly you could choose to change your career or make more long term financial choices.
Many countries are seeing the birth rate decline. If people could extend their life with 20 healthy and productive years it would change everything. Suddenly you could choose to change your career or make more long term financial choices.
The Nature article this is based upon was posted yesterday:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40987224
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40987224
[dupe]
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40987224
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40987224
Was expecting AI generated images of 'supermodel granny'... Was glad to see pictures of mice.
Ah yes, the never ending reign of the boomers would be great. just great.
Though in seriousness, pretty amazing if this works in humans. Peptide therapy seems huge lately.
Though in seriousness, pretty amazing if this works in humans. Peptide therapy seems huge lately.
An antibody is not a peptide [1]. This drug is an antibody that targets the protein interleukin-11.
Peptides are very short amino acid sequences.
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13601...
Peptides are very short amino acid sequences.
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13601...
[deleted]
I'm very uneasy about us collectively seeking longer lifespans. Earth is already supporting more people than is sustainable. Living longer robs someone else of an opportunity to live, or a shorter life. Over many generations we may be able to lower our birthrate to compensate, but I worry about happens in the meantime.
> Over many generations we may be able to lower our birthrate to compensate
We’ve gone—globally—from 5.3 births per woman in 1963 to 2.3 in 2022 [1]. 2.1 is replacement [2]. In the rich world, where longevity treatments will first become available, it’s 1.6 [3]. (3.3 in 1960.)
There are arguments against longer lifespans. Population growth is not one of them.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15832599/
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINOED
We’ve gone—globally—from 5.3 births per woman in 1963 to 2.3 in 2022 [1]. 2.1 is replacement [2]. In the rich world, where longevity treatments will first become available, it’s 1.6 [3]. (3.3 in 1960.)
There are arguments against longer lifespans. Population growth is not one of them.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15832599/
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINOED
I don't argue for a second that our birthrate isn't dropping; it is. But we either haven't dropped it enough, or it's being offset by higher consumption. The overshoot day is now the 1st of August [1]. Until we push that back out to to a sustainable level, we haven't done enough.
To achieve that, I can only see a few classes of solution. We could reduce our per-capita consumption, our lifespan, or our number.
I'm assuming that the overshoot day is roughly correct. The details of exactly how much our birthrate has dropped or by how much our consumption has increased isn't important to know that there is a massive discrepancy between where we are and what is sustainable. Doing anything that increases that discrepancy is probably going to make it worse.
[1] https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/
To achieve that, I can only see a few classes of solution. We could reduce our per-capita consumption, our lifespan, or our number.
I'm assuming that the overshoot day is roughly correct. The details of exactly how much our birthrate has dropped or by how much our consumption has increased isn't important to know that there is a massive discrepancy between where we are and what is sustainable. Doing anything that increases that discrepancy is probably going to make it worse.
[1] https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/
> We could reduce our per-capita consumption, our lifespan, or our number
What is your evidence for shorter lives promoting long-term thinking? Like, look at a map of life expectancy in America [1]. Is Mississippi the bastion of ecological awareness you’re looking for?
Number and per-capita impact are the important variables. Wealth reduces the former and exponentially increases the latter. Longevity reduces the former and linearly increases the latter. (Poverty and reduction in lifespan exponentially increase the former while linearly reducing the latter; you don’t worry about efficiency when you have a short, brutish life.)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
What is your evidence for shorter lives promoting long-term thinking? Like, look at a map of life expectancy in America [1]. Is Mississippi the bastion of ecological awareness you’re looking for?
Number and per-capita impact are the important variables. Wealth reduces the former and exponentially increases the latter. Longevity reduces the former and linearly increases the latter. (Poverty and reduction in lifespan exponentially increase the former while linearly reducing the latter; you don’t worry about efficiency when you have a short, brutish life.)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
> What is your evidence for shorter lives promoting long-term thinking?
I'm looking at it in the other direction; that long-term thinking might result in shorter lives.
I'm looking at it in the other direction; that long-term thinking might result in shorter lives.
> looking at it in the other direction; that long-term thinking might result in shorter lives
Based on what? Increasing lifespan reduces fertility [1]. This is empirically and theoretically grounded. Older populations shrink [2]. Your proposal, shortening lives, is one for boosting populations and consumption.
All that said, this debate is academic. If longevity treatment is possible, we will develop it, and the population can sort itself into those who live longer and those who don’t.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3220400/
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00023-z
Based on what? Increasing lifespan reduces fertility [1]. This is empirically and theoretically grounded. Older populations shrink [2]. Your proposal, shortening lives, is one for boosting populations and consumption.
All that said, this debate is academic. If longevity treatment is possible, we will develop it, and the population can sort itself into those who live longer and those who don’t.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3220400/
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00023-z
We'll be alright:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/07/29...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029445-000-admit-it...
What value do you get out of believing in Earth Overshoot Day? Does it provide real, actionable utility? Does such a belief instill good feelings?
If I had to guess: it tickles the reward pathways in your brain, connected to your survival instinct to be aware of possible threats, whether real or (as I would argue is the case here) imagined. I would doubt there's anything you plan to personally do about Earth Overshoot Day, and I doubt thinking about it instills positive feelings. It's doom porn.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/07/29...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029445-000-admit-it...
What value do you get out of believing in Earth Overshoot Day? Does it provide real, actionable utility? Does such a belief instill good feelings?
If I had to guess: it tickles the reward pathways in your brain, connected to your survival instinct to be aware of possible threats, whether real or (as I would argue is the case here) imagined. I would doubt there's anything you plan to personally do about Earth Overshoot Day, and I doubt thinking about it instills positive feelings. It's doom porn.
What makes you think we're supporting more than is sustainable?
Though I don't think we desperately need to make more people, as some people think we do, I also don't think we need to restrict lifespan progression.
When I look at sustainability of the planet I consider 1) significant portions of the population are obese, and these numbers continue to trend higher. This suggests that we have an abundance of calories available to support more people. We have too much food.
2) water, and particularly fresh water is probably the most restrictive element we require. But I don't think we are restricted by a lack of water, we are restricted by a lack of clean water in the right geographic regions, and of course, the damage that we have caused to the supply. However, we are generating methods of creating fresh water.
3) energy may be the last resource, and particularly that major portions of our current energy needs are provided by damaging and non-sustainable methods. This doesn't mean we need to pause longevity potential, we need to find clean methods of producing energy, which is, and has been in development for a long time.
Is there something else big that I'm missing here?
Though I don't think we desperately need to make more people, as some people think we do, I also don't think we need to restrict lifespan progression.
When I look at sustainability of the planet I consider 1) significant portions of the population are obese, and these numbers continue to trend higher. This suggests that we have an abundance of calories available to support more people. We have too much food.
2) water, and particularly fresh water is probably the most restrictive element we require. But I don't think we are restricted by a lack of water, we are restricted by a lack of clean water in the right geographic regions, and of course, the damage that we have caused to the supply. However, we are generating methods of creating fresh water.
3) energy may be the last resource, and particularly that major portions of our current energy needs are provided by damaging and non-sustainable methods. This doesn't mean we need to pause longevity potential, we need to find clean methods of producing energy, which is, and has been in development for a long time.
Is there something else big that I'm missing here?
> Earth is already supporting more people than is sustainable.
By what metric? If it's a matter of available land, there's plenty to go around: open Google Maps, turn on satellite imagery, center the map on Arizona, USA and zoom in. Absolutely nothing but interstate roads and bushes. No buildings, no people, no nothing.
"There are over 11 million blocks in the U.S., and 47 percent of them are uninhabited."
https://www.fastcompany.com/3029826/mapping-all-the-places-i...
Our large, metropolitan cities may be more crowded than sustainable, but Earth != NYC.
By what metric? If it's a matter of available land, there's plenty to go around: open Google Maps, turn on satellite imagery, center the map on Arizona, USA and zoom in. Absolutely nothing but interstate roads and bushes. No buildings, no people, no nothing.
"There are over 11 million blocks in the U.S., and 47 percent of them are uninhabited."
https://www.fastcompany.com/3029826/mapping-all-the-places-i...
Our large, metropolitan cities may be more crowded than sustainable, but Earth != NYC.
> Over many generations we may be able to lower our birthrate to compensate
Already on it, boss!
Already on it, boss!
As an anti-aging intervention, this is useless because it still doesn't uncover the master organism development regulator, and it doesn't actually "fix" aging, it doesn't make the organism believe that it's younger. The aging process still happens and the organism still dies of the passage of time.
It might be useful as a lead to that master regulator, though. Or it might be not.
It might be useful as a lead to that master regulator, though. Or it might be not.
I’d still take it (or, something that does the same but is proven safe and effective in humans) while waiting for something that matches your desiderata. I’ve seen what ageing can do to people,…
All you need is something that extends your healthspan at slightly greater than the rate that new discoveries to extend your healthspan are made.
Yes, this is called longevity escape velocity, except this is not quite how aging works. The organism wants to destroy itself. It's part of the developmental program that starts with conception but eventually turns self-destructive. Trying to use the modern medical approach, where the body is assisted with what it wants to do anyway, is going to be an uphill battle.
There’s no proof of decline and death being “intentional” (as much as nature has intentions). At this point it’s just as likely that our bodies just tend to naturally poison us with glycated connective tissue, transthyretin, various peptides and what have you.
The proof that it's intentional is that Yamanaka factors work. They reset any cell, no matter the age or the specialization, to a perfectly young stem cell. Another proof is that heterochronic parabiosis works. Transplanting an old organ into a young body rejuvenates the organ as well. High concentrations of exosomes taken from young blood also have a rejuvenating effect.
> proof that it's intentional is that Yamanaka factors work
Not really. Multicellular life is messy. Neglect and bad intent, so far as nature can have intention, are difficult to distinguish.
Not really. Multicellular life is messy. Neglect and bad intent, so far as nature can have intention, are difficult to distinguish.
What do you mean "wants to destroy itself"? Why does it "turn self-destructive"?
The best interpretation I can make is an allusion to how we're designed to be fundamentally unmaintainable (think Twitch's codebase), so living is synonymous with eventual ruin.
Fun biofatalistic fact: some evidence alleges that genes regulate our IQ to keep it within a narrow range, keeping from going too low or too high. :D
So, maybe, by just disabling some regulator gene somewhere, we could all be von Neumanns! But the true fix for all this is to rewrite the genome in Rust.
The best interpretation I can make is an allusion to how we're designed to be fundamentally unmaintainable (think Twitch's codebase), so living is synonymous with eventual ruin.
Fun biofatalistic fact: some evidence alleges that genes regulate our IQ to keep it within a narrow range, keeping from going too low or too high. :D
So, maybe, by just disabling some regulator gene somewhere, we could all be von Neumanns! But the true fix for all this is to rewrite the genome in Rust.
It would be fun to speculate what IQ escape velocity looks like. Just how much can we boost those neurons? How many Whetstones can your wetware do?
Yeah! That's how I'm forecasting the first "superhuman AGI". We don't need a dozen civilizations' training data, either; just enough cheeseburgers. And we have loads of those already. ;D
> organism wants to destroy itself
Organisms don't want anything. They're a complex cascade of chemical processes.
You're correct in that programmed death is a factor in aging. (It's most dramatic in octopuses: removing a physical gland causes them not to brood. Unfortunately, octopuses being aggressive cannibals, this also causes them to devour their young [1].) But if it were 100% programmed death, the problem would be easy: change the code. It's not solely programmed death, but a complex mix of programmed death, accumulated damage and the body not really bothering with the latter, maybe due to the existence of the former [2].
> Trying to use the modern medical approach, where the body is assisted with what it wants to do anyway
A lot of medicine is forcing the immune system to stop going Rambo.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17787564/
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-022-01251-0
Organisms don't want anything. They're a complex cascade of chemical processes.
You're correct in that programmed death is a factor in aging. (It's most dramatic in octopuses: removing a physical gland causes them not to brood. Unfortunately, octopuses being aggressive cannibals, this also causes them to devour their young [1].) But if it were 100% programmed death, the problem would be easy: change the code. It's not solely programmed death, but a complex mix of programmed death, accumulated damage and the body not really bothering with the latter, maybe due to the existence of the former [2].
> Trying to use the modern medical approach, where the body is assisted with what it wants to do anyway
A lot of medicine is forcing the immune system to stop going Rambo.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17787564/
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-022-01251-0
This runs counter to most physiology textbook introductions which tend toward making statements like, "The body's main goal is maintaining homeostasis," and from there framing the rest of the bodily processes as various feedback mechanisms which normally align to achieve homeostasis. Sometimes these processes are at odds with each other, and only their combined effect is homeostatic, but pedagogically the nuance of that is present from the start of education.
> This runs counter to most physiology textbook
Which part?
Which part?
I'm sorry, I meant to respond to the parent, but responded here instead.
It was in reference to the >organism wants to destroy itself. My apologies
It was in reference to the >organism wants to destroy itself. My apologies
> But if it were 100% programmed death, the problem would be easy: change the code.
The problem is finding the code in the first place. To my programmer mind, biology feels like it must be comprised of layers of emergent behavior. We're not very good at understanding these right now. It might well be that the code you're talking about is not in the DNA, but rather it emerges somewhere where we aren't looking.
> A lot of medicine is forcing the immune system to stop going Rambo.
Okay you win :P
The problem is finding the code in the first place. To my programmer mind, biology feels like it must be comprised of layers of emergent behavior. We're not very good at understanding these right now. It might well be that the code you're talking about is not in the DNA, but rather it emerges somewhere where we aren't looking.
> A lot of medicine is forcing the immune system to stop going Rambo.
Okay you win :P
> To my programmer mind, biology feels like it must be comprised of layers of emergent behavior.
Think of it as a billion years of kludges.
Think of it as a billion years of kludges.
I should have said "simple" instead of "easy." It isn't easy. But if it's all in our genes, that's a finite search space. In reality, the search space is indeterminetedly bounded, possibly unbounded. It's hard not because it's elusive, but because it's complex.
Maybe developers should spend more time in bio tech, rather than ad tech.
Imagine if we spent 30% of our effort to improve humanity.
Imagine if we spent 30% of our effort to improve humanity.
Fifteen to twenty extra years of lifespan is useless? With reduced odds of cancer?
(20-25% longer life x 80 year current lifespan.)
(20-25% longer life x 80 year current lifespan.)
Steps to biological immortality would look exactly like these.
On the "lack of evidence in patients" ... does "testing" this in humans mean decades long trials? Given that the effects in their animal model was 25%, it seems like measuring if there was such an increase in humans (and beginning taking it in late middle age) it would be a generation before you had results.
On the "unthinkable to treat every 50-year-old" comment, I think we as a society would need to change as a function of our changed lifespans -- making all the middle-aged people live to 100+ would exacerbate issues around social benefits, housing stock, etc. But if we all had longer, more productive lives (i.e. worked longer, added our skills and expertise to the economy for longer), could that more than offset the costs? If a drug raised your life expectancy by 20 years, and most people worked another 15, that's still pretty good.