A drug slows ageing in middle-aged mice(nature.com)
nature.com
A drug slows ageing in middle-aged mice
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090708/full/news.2009.648.html
16 comments
Depending on the rate of globalization and how sustainable our use of natural resources are by then, we may indeed be facing a population decline by the time life extension comes out. This seems incredible, but rich countries have much lower birthrates than poor countries. So if globalization turns poor countries into rich countries, it will solve the overpopulation problem and move the world below replacement rate.
The economic benefit to life extension is that you can work longer. If life extension works the way we think it will (by reducing the aging process), then it will also extend physical youth, giving us more productive years without the loss of productivity over time that comes with age (but with the gain in productivity over time that comes with experience and wisdom!)
Finally, it won't mean immortality, because it'll only fix old age. People will still die from suicide, homicide, and accident. Since there is a non-zero probability of these things happening to someone, the life expectancy will be more of an expected value than an expiration date, with some people dying at 1, some at 100, and some at 1000. It'll still be possible for people to have kids.
This will probably lead people to adopt an extremely risk-averse culture, and things like casual sex and automobiles will be the first to go. (The risk of dying in childbirth may be high enough to reduce birth rate in such a culture.) That, combined with a slower rate of generational replacement, will cause a very conservative culture in total.
The economic benefit to life extension is that you can work longer. If life extension works the way we think it will (by reducing the aging process), then it will also extend physical youth, giving us more productive years without the loss of productivity over time that comes with age (but with the gain in productivity over time that comes with experience and wisdom!)
Finally, it won't mean immortality, because it'll only fix old age. People will still die from suicide, homicide, and accident. Since there is a non-zero probability of these things happening to someone, the life expectancy will be more of an expected value than an expiration date, with some people dying at 1, some at 100, and some at 1000. It'll still be possible for people to have kids.
This will probably lead people to adopt an extremely risk-averse culture, and things like casual sex and automobiles will be the first to go. (The risk of dying in childbirth may be high enough to reduce birth rate in such a culture.) That, combined with a slower rate of generational replacement, will cause a very conservative culture in total.
Hah. "Casual sex will be the first to go." Have you ever met a person?
> I just don't see how regular joes would be allowed to have this
I don't think it is a question of 'allowed'. Governments have tried to stop people taking certain harmful drugs without much success. So how do you think they will be able to stop people from from taking drugs that keep them alive? Even if a nation could ban it effectively other nations would allow it for a fee. How many intelligent people would stay in a nation that tried to enforce their death?
Initially the cost of any really effective life-extension technology is likely to be high. But the costs should rapidly fall like most other technologies. The ongoing costs of living for the 'immortals' would of course have to be self funded.
I don't think it is a question of 'allowed'. Governments have tried to stop people taking certain harmful drugs without much success. So how do you think they will be able to stop people from from taking drugs that keep them alive? Even if a nation could ban it effectively other nations would allow it for a fee. How many intelligent people would stay in a nation that tried to enforce their death?
Initially the cost of any really effective life-extension technology is likely to be high. But the costs should rapidly fall like most other technologies. The ongoing costs of living for the 'immortals' would of course have to be self funded.
It's a reasonable question and I haven't downmodded you. I think you're right that whenever the solutions become available they will be expensive. However, I also think these solutions are so sought after that they will likely be quickly copied, not necessarily legitimately, and widespread access will be possible/inevitable.
There are two measures which seem to be the focus of "longer life" aging research:
1. Increasing average lifespan.
2. Increasing maximum possible lifespan.
This article deals with the first. I, and I would think most others, would be most interested in the second. I do recognize that the first is easier to achieve.
1. Increasing average lifespan.
2. Increasing maximum possible lifespan.
This article deals with the first. I, and I would think most others, would be most interested in the second. I do recognize that the first is easier to achieve.
It's not very hackerish of me, but I'm feeling increasingly negative about anti-aging research. World population looks set to keep rising until it hits about 9 billion around 2050, while fuel depletion and environmental degradation are growing problems = pretty much a formula for resource wars.
Additionally, a greying population in the developed world means a much higher fiscal burden on younger people in the economy, even if governments begin raising the retirement age (which is probably political suicide).
Additionally, a greying population in the developed world means a much higher fiscal burden on younger people in the economy, even if governments begin raising the retirement age (which is probably political suicide).
War destroy capital structures(roads, farmland, power plants, etc) in addition to lives. So it would be pretty much an unviable option for humanity.
In order for a war to happen, it would need to be a zero sum game. Given that the sun produce more energy in one hour than all of humanity consumes in one year, it would be a really long time before scientists run out of way to get more energy from the sun.
A greying population, like other said, will have the anti-aging cure. This allow the elderly to be in their prime as they grow older, so that won't put much burden on the younger generation.
In order for a war to happen, it would need to be a zero sum game. Given that the sun produce more energy in one hour than all of humanity consumes in one year, it would be a really long time before scientists run out of way to get more energy from the sun.
A greying population, like other said, will have the anti-aging cure. This allow the elderly to be in their prime as they grow older, so that won't put much burden on the younger generation.
You miss the point in your second paragraph. If anti-aging research succeeds the way its proponents want it to, old people won't need to retire, they'll be healthy as ever.
The first paragraph .. well, we'll just have to do better with resources, won't we. We need Fusion, basically. And the 3rd world always has population problems. They will have to sort them out themselves. Most developed countries are going backwards in population, so it's not a problem there, assuming we can solve the resources issue.
The first paragraph .. well, we'll just have to do better with resources, won't we. We need Fusion, basically. And the 3rd world always has population problems. They will have to sort them out themselves. Most developed countries are going backwards in population, so it's not a problem there, assuming we can solve the resources issue.
Agreed about not needing to retire - I'm 40 now and can't comprehend when or why I'd retire as long as I can sit at a desk (or lay in a bed) and pound out markup or code. Maybe only to focus on my own projects or stop dealing with clients.
I think you are a bit naive to assume that the invigorated elderly will forgo any benefits already coming their way, or cheerfully waive them. If anything, I see them exerting a tighter grip on financial and political capital, to the detriment of their generational successors; some would argue that this is already happening. Of course you are correct about the importance of fusion, but I'm not sure of a free lunch there either.
If the government can't afford it, and of course it can't afford to pay pensions to perfectly healthy people for a hundred years, then they won't have a choice.
Anyway, I think society would change. The stigma that comes with a perfectly able young man sitting on unemployment benefits would also be applied to the able 90-year-old collecting benefits while playing golf. Assuming, that is, they could stand the pathetic trickle of cash pensions are, compared to their worth on the job market - and quite a wealth it could very well be.
Anyway, don't people like working?
Anyway, I think society would change. The stigma that comes with a perfectly able young man sitting on unemployment benefits would also be applied to the able 90-year-old collecting benefits while playing golf. Assuming, that is, they could stand the pathetic trickle of cash pensions are, compared to their worth on the job market - and quite a wealth it could very well be.
Anyway, don't people like working?
Every mice cure story should include a specific explanation how this could apply in humans.
For example we have cured cancer in mice many times over using things which are ALREADY in humans, because we are much bigger and live much longer then mice.
Therefore all those mice cures, do absolutely nothing for us.
That's why I want to see specific mention of how this applies to all mammals or just humans.
For example we have cured cancer in mice many times over using things which are ALREADY in humans, because we are much bigger and live much longer then mice.
Therefore all those mice cures, do absolutely nothing for us.
That's why I want to see specific mention of how this applies to all mammals or just humans.
> The researchers caution, however, that using this drug to extend the lifespan of humans might be problematic because it suppresses the immune system — potentially making people who take it more susceptible to infectious diseases.
There's always a catch...
There's always a catch...
I was wondering if perhaps the drug works because it suppresses the immune system - it would suppress any autoimmune effects presumably - maybe those are important in aging?
Do people with RA live any longer?
As it stands now, we have an overpopulation problem. We also live in a world where, whether we like it or not, segments of the population can be considered either a drag on society or a benefit. Who decides?
I have little doubt that someone will crack the code to indefinite lifespans within my lifetime, whether or not this breakthrough is publicized. But do we have any reason to believe that life-extension technology, even adding 10-15 years to the average lifespan, would be accessible to anyone but the super rich?
I just don't see how regular joes would be allowed to have this, but I'd like to be convinced otherwise.
ALSO: If you're going to downmod me, can you please explain why? This is a serious question, and people seem to want to shy away from it whenever it is brought up.