Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A New—and Reversible—Cause of Aging

hms.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 90 posts

Re: A New—and Reversible—Cause of Aging

#31

Post by jseliger »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

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.

In 2005 Charles C. Mann wrote "The Coming Death Shortage" (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/05/the-comi...), which attempts to imagine what a world with drastically lengthened lifespans might look like.

Re: A New—and Reversible—Cause of Aging

#32

Post by nnq »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

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.

Don't bother with those immortality consequences scenarios until you see a real general working treatment for cancer (something way more than "it cures 80% of the cancers in 80% of the cases"). If you live long enough, you will get cancer - basic molecular biology and probability and thermodynamics will take care of this. Also, the side effects of most regenerative treatments are increases in the risk of cancer.

Also, don't bother with "the super-rich becoming super-genetically-enhanced" scenarios - all known genetic therapy technologies have as side effects increasing the risk of cancer.

Basically, cancer is the mythical dragon guarding the tree of eternal-life and super-gene-therapy, so while it's still alive, being super rich and having access to all regenerative medicine and anti-aging therapies will make a difference, but not such a big one, so don't worry :)

(And yeah, finding a "general" solution to the cancer problem is truly hard, maybe even impossible for the absolutely general case - ie, you'll still have rare forms of cancer that don't respond to any know therapies, and as you live longer and longer the probability of bumping into one such form will approach certainty. And getting a better and better treatment for each type of cancer doesn't seem to go much faster until we get a specific set of breakthroughs in nanotechnology that could be applied to this specific problem.)

Re: A New—and Reversible—Cause of Aging

#33

Post by stcredzero »

pyduan wrote: post #24
stcredzero wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Please note that Aubrey de Grey's theories are highly controversial and while some of these mechanisms are indeed big topics in the field, many biogerontologists have been publicly skeptical of his claims. In fact, some of these are even mentioned in your link. 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 interestin…

SENS is controversial, but the cited 7 damage mechanisms are not. The way you worded it, it seems you're implying the 7 mechanisms are not widely accepted, while in fact, they are. (I only used the citation for the list of the 7 damage mechanisms. I can't easily find other lists that are as concise. I too am skeptical of his proposed fixes.)

Re: A New—and Reversible—Cause of Aging

#34

Post by rquantz »

jusben1369 wrote: post #15

“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.

Without intervention, the human body usually headed for divorce, in this analogy, anyway.

Re: A New—and Reversible—Cause of Aging

#36

Post by vixen99 »

bmadden wrote: post #22
lawl wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Your original post is a huge tangent from the topic of discussion. That article is pure fearmongering and is exactly the type of propagandized information that stifles innovation. 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…

No article stifles innovation unless some idiot reads it as scripture!

Meanwhile what do you know about the average Daily Mail reader? Presumably you've researched the around 70 million readers (an exaggeration to be sure but it's a lot of people) who take a daily look at this popular newspaper. I rather think not. But that doesn't stop people like you making predictable and patronizing observations of this kind at every opportunity. No need to comment. We can all 'read' and draw our own conclusions.

Re: A New—and Reversible—Cause of Aging

#38

Post by anentropic »

stcredzero wrote: post #19
ashray wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rich would not get richer. They would stay alive and stick around until they got poorer and eventually died.

In Larry Niven's Known Space books, some of the rich stuck around so long that they became hyper bored and so decided to become super criminals. He has one such minor character who is a woman over two centuries old, with all of the experience and knowledge that entails, with the body of an 18 year old.

aren't they already basically super criminals?

Re: A New—and Reversible—Cause of Aging

#39

Post by grok2 »

jusben1369 wrote: post #15

“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.

I think, it's not really that communication breaks down, it is more that you don't need to communicate at all because you know the other person so well by now. Then divorce happens because you don't like what you know or you realize your spouse isn't what you wanted, or the marriage becomes stronger because you anticipate your partners needs/actions without having to communicate. So yeah, the analogy is not really right.

Re: A New—and Reversible—Cause of Aging

#40

Post by gkop »

jusben1369 wrote: post #15

“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.

Reminds me of http://www.theonion.com/articles/sociologist-considers-own-b... .
Post reply on HN