They totally took the Vitamin D3 thing beyond what the researchers stated. They were interviewed on TV a few days ago and stated concern that people would have a knee-jerk reaction. Everyone always wants a quick fix.
The genes for lifespan, I think I read about that a few years ago. Specifically it had to do with metabolic functions. Basically, the optimal metabolic rate for humans is right on the edge of very faintly starving. But it was a balance. It was possible to adjust it too far either direction and end up with reduced lifespan. Too low, and tissue couldn't repair itself and too high, the tissue used up it's lifespan too quickly.
I still think it has something to do with telomere depletion during replication.
The biggest problem is that if they do find a way to alter people in vivo, it will require recombinant DNA and will be banned and outlawed. The formal reason will be moral based in altering people's DNA, and there will be bible quotes about not crossbreeding your cattle. The REAL reason will be because pensions, insurance, and other financial institutions will need some way to test for your estimated lifespan vs potential maximum lifespan.
and biosingularity is a cool blog. I added it's RSS feed, http://biosingularity.wordpress.com/feed/ , to LJ's syndication system so I could add it to my friends list.
I looked at my multi-vitamin and I am already covered - so if it works - yay :-) Tons of age research going on out there - this is just yet another one - but it was my cool link for the day. Caloric deprivation has been demonstrated in mice - but that level of eating would leave you weak and wouldn't be a pleasant way to live. Telomere depletion and hayflick limits and all - interesting stuff - definitely involved with the aging mechanism. Adding telomerase indiscriminantly leads to cancer though. Some cells need to die. It's a very complicated process and will take a while to figure out - interesting to see the progressing work though. And you're right about banning and outlawing. That is always the reaction. See what you think of this... http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/
I think telomerase gene activation in adult stem cells would be the way to go. It would be too hard to target apopsis for aberrant cells anyway. Even phagocytes need to self-destruct from time to time.
I think superficially that site looks to have good goals. I don't think that stalling aging would explode the population exponentially, since normal disease and trauma would continue to take it's toll.
Still, it could be a problem. Luckily, the societies that breed fastest presently tend to be lower on the tech scale, which makes sense, when you consider the resources one must dedicate to childrearing.
Plus, you'd still have the aspect of women who didn't have eggs frozen or use someone else's eggs would be unable to bear children after a few decades, regardless of their ultimate lifespan.
Plus, if it's done as gene activation rather than altering the germ-line, it could be a right/treatment deprived from violent felons, and would allow the older, natural way to pick back up if something catastrophic but not en totale occurred.
It's looking like eggs can be derived from bone marrow stem cells.... so potentially unlimited supply to an immortal individual. :-) And I actually corresponded with Aubrey de Grey about how a catastrophe would be handled. I expressed concern that a technology erasing event like a big asteroid impact or fast acting virus or such might effectively end the species if we were all dependent on technology to continue living. I also expressed concern that we'd limit our ability to colonize other planets if we had this kind of technology dependence. He actually hadn't though on that level and decided that we could re-introduce standard cell lines into the marrow if we had even a small window to do so and that we could do the same with individuals that were going to be in colonization groups as well. *shrug*
Colonies of different subspecies of human might be neat. Breed humans with less sex drive, greater longevity, smaller bodies, and more patience for a trip to mars... :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zaluzianskya and ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
skylark_photos
no subject
Date: 2005-12-28 09:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-28 10:42 am (UTC)Merry Christmas, btw! Cool green hair ;-)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-28 12:20 pm (UTC)linkylove.
Date: 2005-12-29 12:52 pm (UTC)The genes for lifespan, I think I read about that a few years ago. Specifically it had to do with metabolic functions. Basically, the optimal metabolic rate for humans is right on the edge of very faintly starving. But it was a balance. It was possible to adjust it too far either direction and end up with reduced lifespan. Too low, and tissue couldn't repair itself and too high, the tissue used up it's lifespan too quickly.
I still think it has something to do with telomere depletion during replication.
The biggest problem is that if they do find a way to alter people in vivo, it will require recombinant DNA and will be banned and outlawed. The formal reason will be moral based in altering people's DNA, and there will be bible quotes about not crossbreeding your cattle. The REAL reason will be because pensions, insurance, and other financial institutions will need some way to test for your estimated lifespan vs potential maximum lifespan.
Re: linkylove.
Date: 2005-12-29 12:59 pm (UTC)I added it's RSS feed, http://biosingularity.wordpress.com/feed/ , to LJ's syndication system so I could add it to my friends list.
Re: linkylove.
Date: 2005-12-29 01:03 pm (UTC)Tons of age research going on out there - this is just yet another one - but it was my cool link for the day. Caloric deprivation has been demonstrated in mice - but that level of eating would leave you weak and wouldn't be a pleasant way to live. Telomere depletion and hayflick limits and all - interesting stuff - definitely involved with the aging mechanism. Adding telomerase indiscriminantly leads to cancer though. Some cells need to die. It's a very complicated process and will take a while to figure out - interesting to see the progressing work though.
And you're right about banning and outlawing. That is always the reaction.
See what you think of this...
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/
Re: linkylove.
Date: 2005-12-29 01:49 pm (UTC)I think superficially that site looks to have good goals. I don't think that stalling aging would explode the population exponentially, since normal disease and trauma would continue to take it's toll.
Still, it could be a problem. Luckily, the societies that breed fastest presently tend to be lower on the tech scale, which makes sense, when you consider the resources one must dedicate to childrearing.
Plus, you'd still have the aspect of women who didn't have eggs frozen or use someone else's eggs would be unable to bear children after a few decades, regardless of their ultimate lifespan.
Plus, if it's done as gene activation rather than altering the germ-line, it could be a right/treatment deprived from violent felons, and would allow the older, natural way to pick back up if something catastrophic but not en totale occurred.
Re: linkylove.
Date: 2005-12-29 02:06 pm (UTC)And I actually corresponded with Aubrey de Grey about how a catastrophe would be handled. I expressed concern that a technology erasing event like a big asteroid impact or fast acting virus or such might effectively end the species if we were all dependent on technology to continue living. I also expressed concern that we'd limit our ability to colonize other planets if we had this kind of technology dependence. He actually hadn't though on that level and decided that we could re-introduce standard cell lines into the marrow if we had even a small window to do so and that we could do the same with individuals that were going to be in colonization groups as well. *shrug*
Re: linkylove.
Date: 2005-12-29 09:52 pm (UTC)