21–30 of 90 posts
Dunno why the submission was changed, I suspect the admin didn't actually read the article, which contains original journalism work (article writer got in touch with David Sinclair again for an additional quote).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoting the Daily Fail? Seems unwise. Not even going to read it and neither should anyone else.
I'm not sure why that would be? The idea is out there... Speculating if it will happen is pointless anyways, as it will probably take a long time before reversing aging could be done on scale. So I really don't understand the downvote(s).
Obviously it makes sense to talk about the ramifications of new technology, but the article you linked is doing this in a heavy-handed way to get people to read the article. The result is disproportionate value being placed on that idea for the average reader of dailymail, which necessarily detracts from the discussion of balance surrounding this research.
Its a promising result, but a lot of mice experiments don't have the same effects on people. It would be ironic if this technique failed on humans subjected to a lot of exposure to botox :-) The fear is that suddenly not only would the rich get richer, but they would never die. That leads to some fairly depressing scenarios.
Challenge Accepted. God. /s
On a serious note, this could be charming, but still, most people die, not because they were too old., in fact a very few people hit their biological age limit which i guess is 100 ~ 130. They are still many challenges such as diseases, road accidents which are the No. 1 cause for death.
Link to the abstract on PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24582957 Original is behind a paywall. --- I'd take all this with a grain of salt, though. The biology of aging is incredibly complex. Seemingly certain answers to the question of what causes or mediates aging (e.g. free radicals) have turned out to be less conclusive and all-explaining than researchers originally thought.
There are seven distinct mechanisms for cellular and intracellular damage resulting from aging. Improving the regulation of mitochondria could completely fix one and slow down the rate of accumulation of a few other types of damage, but that's it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negli...
The way you worded it, it seems you're implying SENS is a widely accepted theory, while in fact it's anything but (although I'd say it certainly is interesting and worthy of investigation).
This is REALLY scary if you have recently read the following article: Could we condemn criminals to suffer for hundreds of years? Biotechnology could let us extend convicts' lives 'indefinitely' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2580828/Could... Edit: Since people have some issues with the dailymail, feel free to pick any other article on this topic: https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=prison+life+prol…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoting the Daily Fail? Seems unwise. Not even going to read it and neither should anyone else.
I'm not sure why that would be? The idea is out there... Speculating if it will happen is pointless anyways, as it will probably take a long time before reversing aging could be done on scale. So I really don't understand the downvote(s).
Here's a link to the newscientist article on the same discovery: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24784-turning-back-tim... And the actual paper (the full paper is behind a paywall): http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(13)01521-3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rich would not get richer. They would stay alive and stick around until they got poorer and eventually died.
That's not how capitalism works. Your earning potential increases with your capital, eventually making talent and effort negligible factors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how capitalism works. Your earning potential increases with your capital, eventually making talent and effort negligible factors.
The first generation makes the fortune, the second generation spends it, the third starts over.
“The aging process we discovered is like a married couple—when they are young, they communicate well, but over time, living in close quarters for many years, communication breaks down,” said Harvard Medical School Professor of Genetics David Sinclair" - Totally off topic though but I think he's describing a couple heading to divorce. Nearly all successful marriages move in the exact opposite direction.