Not signed in (Sign In)
    •  
      CommentAuthorilauveyou
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010 edited
     (9234.1)
    We might have found it.

    (PhysOrg.com) -- Harvard scientists at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute say they have for the first time partially reversed age-related degeneration in mice, resulting in new growth of the brain and testes, improved fertility, and the return of a lost cognitive function.
    • CommentAuthorRedwynd
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
     (9234.2)
    Regenerative tissue? Count me in as a test subject.
    •  
      CommentAuthorilauveyou
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
     (9234.3)
    Mwahaha. Right, though?
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
     (9234.4)
    So that means the people with the money to get these treatments will be living longer while those who don't won't?

    Fun times.
    • CommentAuthorSteadyUP
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
     (9234.5)
    Finally, the youthful testes I've always wanted.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
     (9234.6)
    I can just imagine a new character of Warren's, some old wizened guy with a young man's testicles. *shudder*
    •  
      CommentAuthorNeilFord
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
     (9234.7)
    I'd get my brain done first, then my junk. Put me down for some kangaroo legs too.
    • CommentAuthorVerissimus
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
     (9234.8)
    [quote]So that means the people with the money to get these treatments will be living longer while those who don't won't?

    Fun times. [/quote]

    Yeah, that's also my main problem with this sort of discovery.

    Still, one can't stop science. And God knows I've tried!
    • CommentAuthorStefanJ
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
     (9234.9)
    Imagine if it works, but in the process of rejuvenating your brain your forget 90% of what you know.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroddbill
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
     (9234.10)
    Imagine if it works, but in the process of rejuvenating your brain your forget 90% of what you know.


    Without rejuvenating your brain, you're still risking forgetting most of what you now know, only it wouldn't be because of a nice new rejuvenated brain.

    I read a book recently called Long For This World, on the topic of the state of the art and current thinking related to gerontology, and though beautifully written and full of loads of great information I did not already know about how we age, about what is happening on levels macro and micro, I came away from it more pessimistic about the potential for the occasional news story like this one than I have ever been.

    You pretty much have to cure every possible failure mode of the human body all at the same time, or else you are just eliminating one likely demise in favor of another. So, you have youthful balls, but still cancer. Or you've prevented certain types of cancer, but your arteries thin and rupture. And on and on.

    In the end it appears that, as long as cells can possibly reproduce we are doomed to die, because the very act of cell reproduction on the enormous scale under which it occurs in our bodies guarantees that unpreventable disastrous errors will eventually creep in. Aubrey De Grey eventually proposes the actual sterilization of every cell in the human body, to be periodically reversed under controlled treatment conditions every 7 years or so, as a solution.

    I'll take renewed neuroplasticity if it is available, but I'm not holding out much hope for turning back the clock on my whole body. Not in my lifetime, at any rate.
  1.  (9234.11)
    Even if this isn't a means to regain one's youth, if it leads to a treatment for senility and Alzheimer's, I'm all for it.
  2.  (9234.12)
    .... unfortunately in humans, increasing telemorase tends to cause cancer, or at least be highly linked with it.
    So no immortality for us humans.
    • CommentAuthorSteadyUP
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
     (9234.13)
    If you say so, Root - more serum for us. =)
  3.  (9234.14)
    THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2010
     (9234.15)
    > You pretty much have to cure every possible failure mode of the human body all at the same time, or else you are just eliminating one likely demise in favor of another.

    Alternatively you have to extend lifespan by 'x' years, and then within those extra years find more ways (or improve on existing ways) to extend the lifespan further.
    •  
      CommentAuthormister hex
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2010
     (9234.16)
    As an aside, in fiction of all sorts, this type of thing NEVER goes well. Never ever. So take that for what it's worth.
  4.  (9234.17)
    I'd consider youth-enising my brain and then just sticking it into a robotic body. Boom, no more need for an immortality serum that cures all of the body's ailments simultaneously.

    I would then screw with people by pulling the skin off my arm Terminator-style.
  5.  (9234.18)
    @newspaperdrone
    If you really want to euthanise your brain, try a sharp stick or a large rock.
    • CommentAuthorStefanJ
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2010
     (9234.19)
    Actually immortality would probably suck for society in many ways. Sterling's Holy Fire suggests a few. But you could sum it up with: Imagine living in a world where Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are around forever.

    But as audientvoid suggests, just being able to ensure that your later years aren't spent babbling in confusion and lying in your own filth in a nursing home would be quite acceptable. Living in good health until you are 90 and then collapsing into dust might not be a bad thing.
    • CommentAuthor256
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2010
     (9234.20)
    So that means the people with the money to get these treatments will be living longer while those who don't won't?

    Yeah, that's also my main problem with this sort of discovery.

    I don't know where you're going with this. It's not as if a specific longevity treatment would be the first thing to make the rich live longer than the poor. Nor would the solution to this problem appear to be refusing to invent a longevity treatment.

    So what's the relevance of the statement?