

A drug slows ageing in middle-aged mice - Yrlec
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090708/full/news.2009.648.html

======
ruby_roo
Anti-aging/life-extension stuff is all very interesting, but I fail to see how
such technology would ever become accessible to the public at large. For that
to happen, I'd think that there would have to be a significant economic
benefit.

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.

~~~
philwelch
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.

~~~
TheSOB88
Hah. "Casual sex will be the first to go." Have you ever met a person?

------
Femur
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.

------
anigbrowl
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).

~~~
sho
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.

~~~
anigbrowl
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.

~~~
sho
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?

------
asdlfj2sd33
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.

------
jjs
> 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...

~~~
abstractbill
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?

~~~
jamesbritt
Do people with RA live any longer?

