Longevity gene hacked, worms live 5 times longer

[Morrus]

People believed fervently that we'd never fly or that people would die if they travelled more than 70 miles per hour, and they were proved wrong as we learned more.

Yeah, you said that. The fact that some people were wrong about something once doesn't mean that everything we've learned is therefore also wrong. People have been plenty right about stuff, too!

 

[Kramodlog]

You're right about immortality, but longevity isn't such a stretch.

How dare you make me agree with you!

All those population problems don't need people to never die, they only need people to die a bit less than they do now (or even at the same rate).

Or just continue to exploite natural resources the way we do.

As for intergalactic travel - yeah, we're not gonna break light speed. No wormholes or warp drives. Subliminal all the way. Though accelerating to a decent percentage of light speed only takes a year or so at 1G acceleration using boring old rocket technology, so the nearest stars (a few light years a way) are feasibly within a lifespan - the issue there isn't physics, it's engineering. Carrying the fuel. A resource issue, primarily. Like you say, back-and-forth, though, isn't going to happen.

Other galaxies? Nope. Never gonna happen. Not unless someone suddenly discovers magic.

Richard Garfield already did.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

What's the point of increasing longevity if we don't also increase the quality of life in advanced age? People live to 90 now and look at them - shells of themselves. Who wants that? Certainly not me.

Hopefully any advancements made in this field will be truly weighed against the incredible problems they'll pose for the future. Wanting to live forever is about as selfish as one can get. There's simply not enough anything to go around as it is today. Add more people and you'll have nothing sooner than later.

I see stuff like this as toys for the incredibly wealthy and not much more so wanting this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Let's say it all works out and you or your offspring be able to live for hundreds of years - or more - and do so with a body that will actually stand the test of time. Do you really think you'll be able to afford it?

And then there's the ethical questions involved. It's been said that this work needs to be done on life in the embryonic stage. Who says you have the right to make that decision for this child? How do you know they'll end up as greedy as you? You can't. You may condemn them to a living hell.

Meh, it's not as great as people think it is.

 

[Kramodlog]

What's the point of increasing longevity if we don't also increase the quality of life in advanced age? People live to 90 now and look at them - shells of themselves. Who wants that? Certainly not me.

That is a given.

Hopefully any advancements made in this field will be truly weighed against the incredible problems they'll pose for the future.

We need a rofl smiley, cause we ain't doing this now with new discoveries.

I see stuff like this as toys for the incredibly wealthy.

Probably.

Let's say it all works out and you or your offspring be able to live for hundreds of years - or more - and do so with a body that will actually stand the test of time. Do you really think you'll be able to afford it?

And raises the question of a stratified society based on genes/money.

And then there's the ethical questions involved. It's been said that this work needs to be done on life in the embryonic stage. Who says you have the right to make that decision for this child? How do you know they'll end up as greedy as you? You can't. You may condemn them to a living hell.

They always could opt for suicide.

As for deciding for the child, I understand what you are saying, but you already decided to bring it into the world. Did you ask it if it wanted to be born? Why not ask if it is ethical to bring a child if you are poor while we're at it? So, where do we draw the line on what we can decide for a child?

 

[Zombie_Babies]

That is a given.

Yup.

We need a rofl smiley, cause we ain't doing this now with new discoveries.

Kind of my point.

Probably.

I'd go so far as to say 'likely'.

And raises the question of a stratified society based on genes/money.

Exactly. It's not as if there isn't one now but imagine if these people could also live hundreds of years and really establish themselves as the top layer of society.

They always could opt for suicide.

And be damned to hell!??! I think not!

As for deciding for the child, I understand what you are saying, but you already decided to bring it into the world. Did you ask it if it wanted to be born? Why not ask if it is ethical to bring a child if you are poor while we're at it? So, where do we draw the line on what we can decide for a child?

True - and I'm not trying to draw any line. I just wanted to throw some questions out there that people don't seem to be thinking about.

 

[amerigoV]

As a pension actuary - we need to figure out how to kill old people off sooner, not have them live longer. This will wreck all my numbers. Besides, my Fat Kid Theory (tm) is that mortality may downturn anyway ("Save a pension plan - eat a donut!")

On a more serious note - right now longevity is split along education/social-economic level. The real bright line in the US is high school diploma. If you have one you are in the group that continues to see longevity improvements. If not, well, at least you do not have to save much for retirement.

 

[Kramodlog]

As a pension actuary - we need to figure out how to kill old people off sooner, not have them live longer. This will wreck all my numbers. Besides, my Fat Kid Theory (tm) is that mortality may downturn anyway ("Save a pension plan - eat a donut!")

Why not have them work longer. We live longer healthier lives now, we are can be productive for a longer period. Look at Warren Buffet, 82 and still churning up billions!

The problem with fatties is that they are less productive and increase other costs, like health care

 

[WayneLigon]

True - and I'm not trying to draw any line. I just wanted to throw some questions out there that people don't seem to be thinking about.

I've thought about them and mostly dismissed them. And sure, like cars and computers such things will start out being affordable by only the richest people. And as things do, once the tech becomes more and more pervasive, it'll become available to wider circles of people. Ten years ago a giant flatscreen TV cost more than some cars. Now, a good sized one is a significant purchase but one most people don't really balk at, achievable with minimal planning. something like a quarter of a month's paycheck. Another five years or so, and they'll be something you pick up on a whim.

I've always wanted to use the phrase 'There will be a brief period of adjustment' as the title for a novel. If we found a way tomorrow to give people a lifespan of 200 years, there would be a brief period of adjustment.


Right now, today, we can do somatic gene therapy and change an adult's genetic profile by using retroviruses and a couple other methods. We've been doing it on a limited basis for 20 years now, cases here and there. It's still a work in progress, but every year it gets better. The main problem is the damn immune response, and the fact that we cannot do good germ line gene manipulation yet - germ line would allow the treatment to be self-replicating, and to be passed on to your kids. For instance, even if we were able to successfully somatically treat a genetic-based mental retardation problem in a person, their kids would still likely have the same problem.

Unfortunately, it looks like good research on germ-line gene therapies has been slowed considerably because of whining about 'designer kids', as well as the facts that it's as expensive as hell and still in the testing stages. There's a lot of problems with successful targeting, as well. There's a huge amount we still need to discover but we will, eventually.

 

[amerigoV]

Why not have them work longer. We live longer healthier lives now, we are can be productive for a longer period. Look at Warren Buffet, 82 and still churning up billions!

The problem with fatties is that they are less productive and increase other costs, like health care

Thats the problem - you cannot get people to work longer. Age 65 was picked by most social insurance retirement programs because of the cost. But as longevity increased, its been hard to push that out. Even the US system the rates that are pushed out to 67 are not adequate.

Plus some jobs (heavy physical labor) cannot sustain older people well. While mfg is down in the US, its not gone.

The original story really scares me. Figuring out how to make spineless creatures live 5 times longer means politicians will live longer. Not a good thing.

 

[Kramodlog]

Thats the problem - you cannot get people to work longer. Age 65 was picked by most social insurance retirement programs because of the cost. But as longevity increased, its been hard to push that out. Even the US system the rates that are pushed out to 67 are not adequate.

Hard, but it has to be done or increase primiums. The age to receive the old age security pension (Canada, federal level), was raise to 67 recently.

Plus some jobs (heavy physical labor) cannot sustain older people well. While mfg is down in the US, its not gone.

That is very true and a solution needs to be found for them. Either paying more when they work or setting up recycling programs to teach them new skills.

What is even scarier is the automatization of labor (and now the service sector). This means more people who just won't work during their adult life time.

The original story really scares me. Figuring out how to make spineless creatures live 5 times longer means politicians will live longer. Not a good thing.

Meh, they just a reflection of the people they represent.