backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 94 comment(s) - last by sinful.. on Jan 27 at 12:56 AM

Researchers warn extending human lifespan is not without grave side effects

Scientists commonly use baker’s yeast in studies involving aging because it is simple and one of the best understood organisms at a molecular and genetic level. Researchers from the University of Southern California (USC) have created a baker’s yeast that has a lifespan 10-times that of normal baker’s yeast.

Researchers include study leader Valter Longo and other participants including Keck School of Medicine associate professor Lucio Comai, USC graduate students and members of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York.

The researchers used a calorie-restricted diet for the yeast and removed a pair of genes, RAS2 and SCH9, which promote aging in yeast and cancer in humans. Longo says, “We got a 10-fold life span extension that is, I think, the longest one that has ever been achieved in any organism.” A typical baker’s yeast lives about one week.

While the longevity extension in baker’s yeast was without apparent side effects, Longo warns that typically longevity mutations result in severe growth deficits and other health problems. This means finding drugs to extend human life will not be easy and may come with severe side effects.

Longo and his group say a more attainable goal for use of his research in humans would be to combat diseases like Werner/Bloom syndromes that prematurely age sufferers, increase cancer risk and lead to the death of the victim. To combat this sort of disease, Longo suggests that his teams research in blocking the aging pathways might be a good option for treatment in humans.

Longo told USC News, “Maybe it [treating aging pathways in humans] will do nothing, but having nothing else, I think it’s certainly a good thing to try.”

USC researchers were also in the news during 2007 for developing a new generation of retinal implants.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By therealnickdanger on 1/23/2008 4:24:36 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, I'd probably choose to live out those extra 135 years... even if they are fraught with peril.




By aguilpa1 on 1/23/2008 4:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
hmmm, if they could extend your life 10 times, with a lifespan of 75 you would be 750years old. I don't think I would want to live that long, 250 tops.


By monitorjbl on 1/24/2008 1:48:13 AM , Rating: 1
It might be in everyone's best interest not to pursue this topic any further.


By P4blo on 1/24/2008 12:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
They're saying it was accidental. Apparently before going to bed he'd asked one of his best friends (a director), to call him in the morning so he didn't oversleep. Which is easy to do if you take sleeping pills too late at night.

Sadly it was St. Peter who had to wake him up.

Seriously, humans living even to 200 years let alone 750 is a massive problem. The non regenerative parts of our bodies crap out. Bones, teeth etc. If you want to be a 750 year old blob of flesh then crack on.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 2:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
Bones can regenerate. Teeth too, in theory at least. Your body buds a replacement set of teeth once in your life...and sharks do so continously. There's no theoretical reason gene therapy or some other approach couldn't keep you young forever.

In any case, 750 year lifespans aren't on the horizon for any of us living today. There's still far more that we don't understand about the body compared to what we do.


By Samus on 1/24/2008 3:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
Only recently was is discovered tooth enamel can rebuild, however, gum tissue can not. Receeding gum lines? Nothing we can do about that yet, and that's generally why people have bad dental health in their late years.


By excrucio on 1/24/2008 8:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
Lifespan for the billionares only.

middle class will not be able to afford
nor will they make payment plans.

payment in full.

Done deal. If u wanna live to 750..or forever your damn problem. You probably will die by some other means.


By geddarkstorm on 1/25/2008 11:36:20 AM , Rating: 2
Ever cut your gums before? They regenerate, heal, and carry on like the rest of your body. Theoretically, any part of your body is capable of some levels of regeneration, which is seen mostly in children. Even the brain can undergo some healing especially in the young. As you age, your ability to regenerate most tissues is lost apparently; it seems to be a side effect of the aging process. But biologically speaking, we can regenerate any part of our body what so ever, and there are organisms, like some species of salamanders, that do so and have very little difference between their systems for that and our's.

It's a mystery, but since the discovery of a strain of mice that could regenerate any part of themselves in bulk (heart, bone, whole limbs), except the brain which had a more restrictive regeneration ability, there is little doubt that humans have the capacity--just we know too little of the systems that govern and control it all.


By Ryanman on 1/23/2008 10:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure. Think of all the changes you would see... this history made that you could testify to if you lived that long. Eventually everything would be so different that you'd want to die, and if the people you loved didn't follow you it'd be more difficult. But I'd love to see a millennium come and go.


By crimson117 on 1/24/2008 1:06:54 AM , Rating: 5
hmph!

When 900 years old you reach, look as good you will not!


By Googer on 1/25/2008 1:14:03 AM , Rating: 2
Certain People live to be 110-125, that would put them at 1,100 to 1,250 years old before they died!

There are some a-holes in this world we could live with out, imagine if Castro, Hitler, or some other life long appointed dictator had this done to them?


By Pops on 1/23/2008 4:38:06 PM , Rating: 3
Imagine a 100 year old person. Now multiply their wrinkles and sun spots by 10x. Seriously, who would want to be THAT ugly for 900 years?


By dubldwn on 1/23/2008 4:42:30 PM , Rating: 6
When 900 years you reach, look as good, you will not.

Yoda


By dflynchimp on 1/23/2008 4:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

had I not commented already I'd rate you up.

Assuming this modification is aimed at aging, we're more likely to retain our youthful appearances for a longer time...but wait...we might also experience puberty for ten times as long...oh that would be absolute hell.


By timmiser on 1/23/2008 5:06:00 PM , Rating: 3
I think you're exactly right. For some reason, people think you would look 10 times worse than a 100 year old person today when in reality, your age and appearance would just slow down. Think of the other issues though, we may spend 100 years in puberty and another 200-300 years in a child bearing state. Would family sizes be bigger? Could one really stay married to their spouse for 1000 years??! Would murder rates go up? So many things to ponder!


By mholler on 1/23/2008 5:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure why you would think that aging and appearance would slow down. Most physical signs of aging are due to the natural effect of gravity and environmental forces taking their toll on the human body. I don't see how just extending someone's life would prevent that from happening.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 6:00:55 PM , Rating: 3
Gravity only "takes its toll" because skin (and other body parts) lose their elasticity and ability to regenerate.

A simple change to a couple of genes isn't going to eliminate all aging effects, but I can certainly see it slowing the visible effects of getting older.


By ajfink on 1/23/2008 7:48:58 PM , Rating: 5
Regeneration of particular and necessary brain cells is a far more pressing concern, IMO.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 7:53:43 PM , Rating: 3
By Hydrofirex on 1/23/2008 7:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
Don't underestimate UV radiation. The Sun will age you as bad as being an alcoholic or drug addict - and yeah, don't forget the effects of chemical abuse, stress, and general wear and tear.

I agree extending life would almost certainly correlate to the life-cycle's speed to some degree, but the abuse is still going to build up over such an increased time span. My bet is that you'd reach maturity a little bit slower, but would see a much bigger increase in lapses between the midlife stages.

Not that it matters. In 750 years you'd be able to go "fully Prosthetic".

Anyone up for skyscraper diving?

HfX


By Alexstarfire on 1/23/2008 6:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, most of them aren't. You're skin sagging might be, but that's about it, and that can be fixed pretty easily. Of course, we could be like the elves. Have a relatively normal childhood, then once we'd finished our "growth spurt" we'd be adults for the rest of our lives. So basically up until about 18 it'd be like now, but the next 750 years you'd be an adult.

Anyways, all I've got to say to people who want to increase our life 10x fold is: Are you trying to wipe out humans? Can you even imagine how many people we'd have to feed? It'd reach the hundred billions pretty fast. That's like stopping death for the next 500 years, well natural deaths anyways. We'd have 20 or more generations of families living together at the same time.


By SlyNine on 1/24/2008 2:16:05 AM , Rating: 2
I think at that point we should be colonizing other planets . I mean, If we can make humans live to be around 1000 years old, I think FTL travel and reaching other planets is going to happen.


By OndrejSc on 1/24/2008 8:30:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Could one really stay married to their spouse for 1000 years??!


There is only one answer for me. It's a yes. But I guess I'm just lucky that way. :-)


By ajfink on 1/23/2008 5:14:24 PM , Rating: 4
Six-rank our Yoda-quoter, for the love of decency.


By dluther on 1/23/2008 5:56:34 PM , Rating: 1
I think a 750 year-old man would probably look a *lot* like Yoda.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/23/2008 4:45:11 PM , Rating: 3
Ever see Renaissance?


By Cygni on 1/23/2008 5:05:38 PM , Rating: 4
With research, this can be overcome. The basic fact of the matter is that your body is designed to self destruct. Creatures that live for longer life spans are incredibly unadaptive to changes in their surroundings. Because of this, most creatures, including us, have relatively short life spans which are more or less predetermined by our genetics. Even with perfect diet and a perfect environment for human life, you will still age, become old, and die.

However, as mentioned, this is controlled by genes... genes we are now learning to manipulate on a larger and larger scale. With research, these 'self destruct' genes can be altered, removed, and repackaged. Genes that spurred growth and cellular renewal in your youth can be reactivated.

Of course, thats a good distance away, and there will be many large obstacles in the way. But we are already well on that path, as this research shows.


By Adonlude on 1/23/2008 7:09:01 PM , Rating: 1
Politics will probably be a bigger obstacle than the science. I imagine that the therapy required would be an expensive proposition which means living forever is only for the rich. Most BS "politically correct" and/or liberal leftist societies would never allow that. Conservative rightist societies will likely shoot down the research on the grounds that it messes with gods plan.

Blah, I can't stand politics, I want to live into the 100's!


By jkresh on 1/23/2008 5:05:56 PM , Rating: 3
People kind of seem to be missing something here. If this could be applied to humans (without any major side effects) then we would be talking about slowing the aging process not just increasing the amount of time you live when you are physically old. Ie, if we slowed the aging process by a factor of 10 (lets say we wait till you are 20 to start as otherwise you would be spending a lot of time as a little kid), then from 20-30 would take 100 years and so on and so forth, so you wouldn't look/feel like a person who is 100 now until you were around 820 years old (assuming you started treatment at 20).


By rivercat on 1/23/2008 5:12:41 PM , Rating: 1
Not to mention 500 year olds driving! Now that's scary.


By Xenoterranos on 1/23/2008 4:39:37 PM , Rating: 1
No no. Much too perilous.


By BladeVenom on 1/23/2008 5:02:06 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, living that long could kill you.


In other news...
By Polynikes on 1/23/2008 4:19:34 PM , Rating: 1
We already have an overpopulation problem.




RE: In other news...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/23/2008 4:24:12 PM , Rating: 3
We do?


RE: In other news...
By gradoman on 1/23/2008 6:37:38 PM , Rating: 1
In an ideal world, perhaps, we could support tens of billions people.

Have you seen those poor people in (insert African country) or say, India? Have you lived on an island after a hurricane to experience how fucked up it gets when you can't get clean water or fuel or medical assistance?

What about the price and availability of clean water in places less fortunate? Solve those problems first for the people currently living, not the billions more you suggest the world could support.


RE: In other news...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 6:46:53 PM , Rating: 5
> "Have you seen those poor people in (insert African country)"

Let's insert one...say, Sudan. It has a population density of some 14 ppl/sq. km. That's some 25 times lower than Japan, and some four hundred times lower than Hong Kong....both places where the standard of living is immeasurably higher.

The problem in Africa isn't too many people. It's the political and social structures.

Or take China, for instance...which has some 300 million more people today than it did a few decades ago...yet the standard of living is increasing almost faster than it can be measured. What changed? The social and political climate, that's what.

> "Have you lived on an island after a hurricane "

And this has what exactly to do with population levels?


RE: In other news...
By gradoman on 1/23/2008 7:00:37 PM , Rating: 1
Supplying them with sustenance is hard enough as it is. How will you support that amount of people with all those issues already?

Did you not read my post? I never said it was impossible, I'm saying there are issues all over with our current population and there is no need to inflate it anymore w/those issues.

As it is, it's hard enough for enough people, why do you need to have billions more in the same shituation?

Look at the response of our govt during Katrina, Rita, Andrew -- Marilyn and Huge for me. I lived without power, running water, and more for quite a while.

If we can solve problems like that first, like with govts around the world, then we can talk about more people. Don't you think?

Again, plenty are suffering, all over. No need for more people.


RE: In other news...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 7:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
> "Supplying them with sustenance is hard enough as it is."

It's only hard because 3/4 of the world is still using 19th century technology in agriculture, and what food and resources do exist in those African nations are squandered due to corruption, civil disorder, and other political problems.

> "Look at the response of our govt during Katrina, Rita, Andrew -- Marilyn and Huge for me. I lived without power, running water, and more for quite a while."

Again, what does this have to do with anything? If anything, more people means more hands (and especially minds) to help solve problems.

> "plenty are suffering, all over"

People are suffering less today than ever before in human history. That's DESPITE the largest population in all history. What does that tell you?


RE: In other news...
By gradoman on 1/23/2008 7:44:15 PM , Rating: 2

It's only hard because 3/4 of the world is still using 19th century technology in agriculture, and what food and resources do exist in those African nations are squandered due to corruption, civil disorder, and other political problems.


How is having more people going to help? How many of us currently care about what's happening this moment? How are is a larger population going to help anything? I don't see how your argument holds up...

Between 2-5 million dead in the Congo & many more dying per month; I'm sure many more are starving, homeless, etc. How will having more people on the planet help change governments, mentality, etc?

(typing w/a baby in hand is hard, masher, but i look 4ward to your reply)


RE: In other news...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 7:51:13 PM , Rating: 4
> "How is having more people going to help? "

Because more people means more ideas....and ideas can and do change the world.

More people means more scientists, more researchers, more engineers, more intellectuals. And since the invention of writing made knowledge cumulative, every new idea can potentially last forever.

Our rate of technological growth has accelerated every century since the Gutenberg press...and it just keeps going up. As world population increases, so does innovation.

More people is a *good* thing. We're nowhere near what the planet can comfortably support. Ask me again when the world hits 15 billion...but until then, just sit back and enjoy the ride.


RE: In other news...
By gradoman on 1/23/2008 8:40:27 PM , Rating: 1
So, of course, more people = more ideas, but there are about 7 billion people on the planet, maybe we don't live so long and therefore don't have as much experience like another poster said, but how is there a lack of ideas?

I'd say there is a lack of action on the part of the developed world and issues with governments (I do agree with you) in those impoverished places that prevent people from living happy lives.


RE: In other news...
By Cincybeck on 1/24/2008 1:12:10 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with masher. More people, equals more ideas. More chances, and more time to solve our earthly problems. I'm not saying the first couple hundred years wouldn't be difficult, but we're a surprisingly resilient and adaptive race. Imagine a world where people like Einstein who is herald as the greatest physicist of all time had not just years, but hundreds of more years to research. Uncovering the secrets of this universe. I think with our life spans increased ten fold our collective potential would increase exponentially.


RE: In other news...
By sinful on 1/23/2008 7:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As it is, it's hard enough for enough people, why do you need to have billions more in the same shituation?

Look at the response of our govt during Katrina, Rita, Andrew -- Marilyn and Huge for me. I lived without power, running water, and more for quite a while.

If we can solve problems like that first, like with govts around the world, then we can talk about more people. Don't you think?


Not really. More people does not automatically mean poor people.
In fact, it would seem that it would probably be the opposite case: the rich people would opt in, while 3rd while countries wouldn't be able to afford this.
I.e. if we developed a cure for cancer tomorrow, that doesn't mean tons more people in Uganda - they're not going to be able to afford it. It's only the richer countries that it's going to be a viable option.

Secondly, a longer life would seemingly mean greater income, if the "working years" are expanded.
In other words, if your "working years" are now a greater proportion of your overall life, you're obviously going to be generating substantially more wealth.
I.e. if you live to be 80 now, you probably really only spent about 40 years in the work force.
If you live to be 200, you might spend 160 years in the work force.
Considering you (generally) make more money as time goes on, you're going to eventually be making a LOT more money.

Third, you also falsely assume that these "extra people" aren't going to be making any sort of meaningful contribution to those problems, which is arguably false. I would say a group of highly experienced, wealthy individuals are better suited to solving those problems than we are currently.

I.e. instead of having 10 years experience in FEMA trying to respond to disasters, you might have someone with 120 years experience. Obviously, having the same person respond to 12 similar hurricane scenarios is going to be vastly better than someone that *might* experience one hurricane while they work at FEMA. Obviously, that person is going to learn and improve the response. Maybe by the 13th hurricane, worrying about hurricanes will be a moot point - all the disaster response equipment is already planned, prepped & ready. Heck, such experience might allow is to mitigate the effects of disaster entirely.

In fact, living vastly longer might encourage people to "behave better" in many different ways as well. It would almost certainly get rid of some of the "slash & burn" mentality of "let other people worry about it - by the time it's a problem, I'll be dead!".


RE: In other news...
By gradoman on 1/23/2008 8:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
Alright, I agree with the more experience = better response, but I can't see why things can't improve as it is without living 10x as long.


RE: In other news...
By rcc on 1/24/2008 4:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
It's all about time. From the time we are are young adults we are in a hurry. We have to become successful, find a mate while we are young enough to enjoy it, buy a house, raise a family, set up retirement, etc. All within a 60ish year span. If you stretch out lifespans, you take some of the immediacy out of the equation.

However, one of the problems with longer lifespans in developed countries is a great increase in the number of idle or people on hold. As the lifespan increases, children will have to wait much longer to inherit businesses, money, etc. So they either have to get their own "stuff" in one sock and create a life, or wait much longer for one to be handed to you.

On yet another hand, it might actually revive the family owned and operated business. Since they tend to die if the children aren't interested in that career choice, longer lifespans would allow the grand children, GG children, etc. to step in while the business was still flourishing.

And as someone else mentioned, think of the advances in science, art, philosophy, hell even politics, if the geniuses and creators of an age had a extra couple hundred years to develop thoughts, theories, and processes. Or for Joe Blow to figure out a more efficient way to do something and have time to exploit it.

Grist for the mill.


RE: In other news...
By mcturkey on 1/23/2008 11:41:05 PM , Rating: 5
That's a bit of a problem, though... most people dislike their jobs. Even those who do enjoy their jobs probably wouldn't want to do them for a hundred years, let alone five hundred. So I suspect that there would be a lot of folks seeking further education later in life and retraining for new jobs at an age when most of us currently would retire. And if we're going to some day have people who can live this long, we need to implement strict term limits in Congress. Seriously, the idea of having incumbent "representation" for centuries makes me want to become violently ill.


RE: In other news...
By gradoman on 1/24/2008 9:55:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

Not really. More people does not automatically mean poor people.


Gosh, really? You really feel as though you're going to be able to make more money working 600 years? I'm quite sure if everyone else is on equal footing, the amount of money you amass will be proportionally the same. You make a billion, guy next door makes a billion, no? Are things so different then?

In regards to masher's "more people = more ideas" and that people aren't suffering as much -- well, I'm sorry, but if you all think that everyone's gonna be on equal footing, the world just doesn't work like that. You envision a utopian world where everyone is having a grand ol' time and no one has to pick up their own dog's shit, living to triple-digit ages, whereas, I see it as quite grandiose and unrealistic.

WWI, 40mil dead. WWII 60mil dead. Pol Pot 3/4 mil dead. Under Mao at least 1mil dead. What about Milosevic? This isn't back in the early 1400s, that's within 100 years, some within 25 years. Could you total that?

Today, masher, there are still people dying. Why aren't our ideas helping now ? Hell, the guys that meet at Socrates Park can't even clean up after their own dogs. Would that change after a few hundred years? I'm guessing we'll have robots, but will the rest of the world have 'em? /end sarcasm

quote:
It's only hard because 3/4 of the world is still using 19th century technology in agriculture, and what food and resources do exist in those African nations are squandered due to corruption, civil disorder, and other political problems.


Really? One person could order the killings of millions and millions. Do you really think ideas matter at that point? How many people have died for their great ideas? Again, we've got robots but does the rest of the world have 'em?


RE: In other news...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 10:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why aren't our ideas helping now ? "

Why of course, they *are* helping...as any serious student of history realizes. You mention the 14th Century. Do you have any idea how bitterly barbaric that time was?

The Holocaust was certainly bad enough. But it affected only 0.1% of the population. More importantly, it was considered an atrocity. In the 14th Century, such acts were commonplace....and your chances of dying before age 30 to war, civil disorder, or disease was well over 50%. In fact, during the 14th Century, infant mortality was so high that most people didn't get attached to their children until they reached age 2 or 3. It just didn't make sense, when so many of them died.

And what was your life like if you managed to survive? For 99% of the population, it meant laboring in the fields for 16 hour days...starting at about age 10. A good night's entertainment was scratching your fleas and picking lice out of the missus' hair. When the sun went down, you went to bed....the average person couldn't afford to burn candles for light. And books? Far too expensive for the common man, even if you could read, which you probably couldn't.

Say something bad about the king, and you could easily wind up drawn and quartered. Know what that means? It's literal. Your arms and legs are drawn out, cut off, then (usually) buried in different areas. Say something really radical, like Last Rites aren't really needed to go to heaven, and you might wind up being tortured by the Inquisition, before being burned at the stake.

Oh, and lets not forget charming little customs like droit de seigneur, which consisted of your lord's legal right to rape your wife on your honeymoon night.

I'd say new ideas have improved life quite a bit since that time, eh? What about you?


RE: In other news...
By sinful on 1/27/2008 12:56:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gosh, really? You really feel as though you're going to be able to make more money working 600 years? I'm quite sure if everyone else is on equal footing, the amount of money you amass will be proportionally the same. You make a billion, guy next door makes a billion, no? Are things so different then?


You're essentially saying "If EVERY person in the ENTIRE world gets the exact same benefits, there's not really any benefit!"

And then you go on to say:
quote:
but if you all think that everyone's gonna be on equal footing, the world just doesn't work like that.


So, obviously, if everyone is not on equal footing, those able to work longer are going to be better off than those who are not.

Secondly, even if every person in the US makes billions of dollars and are "on the same footing", people in other countries might *not* be able to do the same, since they won't receive the "longevity gene therapy". Thus, America's wealth increases in proportion to other countries - meaning products, services, etc. might be the same price as they are now -- but we have substantially more money.

Heck, even if other countries benefit equally (say, the "longevity vaccine" is completely free and distributed to everyone) -- opportunities in the US might have a "multiplication effect" as compared to those in other countries.
i.e. An American person with 1000 years might be vastly more successful than a Chinese person with 1000 years, just because of better opportunities in the US....


RE: In other news...
By Oroka on 1/23/2008 11:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
But could you imagine 500 years of knowlege and experience in one head? Imagine what one generation of scientists could do with that much time. Imagine Einstine kicking around for 500 years, the wonders he could have thought up.

Not saying that extending EVERYONES lifespan indefinatly is pratical, but for those who have acheived something important (like a scientific break through), would be rewarded with living for a few hundered extra years. It would give a non monetary incentive for people to acheive greatness.

Also, after having 5-6 kids, would you really want to have children even though your great great grandkids are in thier 20s now? I think seeing your grandchildren grow up, and thier grandkids grow up would satisfy the urge to have more kids.

I honestly expect to live to atleast 150 years right now. Imagine what technology they will have 50, 75, 100 years from now. All those people who are 80, 90, 100 now were born... well, 80, 90, 100 years ago. They were still using leaches, and taking tonics with cocain in them to heal wounds. I now live in a world that has clean water, good health care, good medicine, I dont smoke and within 20 years no one will (in north america atleast). I dont live aroud aspestos, the car I drive burns unleaded gas, my walls are latex paint, not lead paint... things are looking good for me!


RE: In other news...
By rcc on 1/24/2008 4:30:43 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, since you brought it up, sorta, here are some stats for 1906. This came out of an email that circulated a couple years ago.

1906

The average life expectancy in the U.S. was 47 years.

Only 14 percent of the homes in the U.S. had a bathtub.

Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.

A three-minute call from Denver to New York City
cost eleven dollars.

There were only 8,000 cars in the U.S., and only 144 miles
of paved roads.

The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.

Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more
heavily populated than California.

With a mere 1.4 million people, California was only the 21st
most populous state in the Union.

The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower!

The average wage in the U.S. was 22 cents per hour.

The average U.S. worker made between $200 and $400 per year .

A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year,
a dentist $2,500 per year, a veterinarian between $1,500 and $4,000 per year, and a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.

More than 95 percent of all births in the U.S. took place at HOME .

Ninety percent of all U.S. doctors had NO COLLEGE EDUCATION!
Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which
were condemned in the press AND the government as "substandard."

Sugar cost four cents a pound.

Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.

Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.

Most women only washed their hair once a month, and used
borax or egg yolks for shampoo.

Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from
entering into their country for any reason.

Five leading causes of death in the U.S. were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke

The American flag had 45 stars.
Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii, and
Alaska hadn't been admitted to the Union yet.

The population of Las Vegas, Nevada, was only 30!!!!

Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and ice tea
hadn't been invented yet.

There was no Mother's Day or Father's Day.

Two out of every 10 U.S. adults couldn't read or write.

Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.
Eighteen percent of households in the U.S. had at least
one full-time servant or domestic help.

There were about 230 reported murders in the ENTIRE ! U.S.A. !


RE: In other news...
By Polynikes on 1/23/2008 9:39:36 PM , Rating: 1
In a lot of areas, I'd say so. Pretty much the entire state of California... I can't stand it. Someone could offer me a job there for $1,000,000 a year, and I'd turn it down.


RE: In other news...
By TomZ on 1/23/2008 4:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
...only if you buy into the Greenpeace-type enviro-rhetoric.

In reality, the Earth could easily support 10X today's population and more.


RE: In other news...
By Nik00117 on 1/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: In other news...
By timmiser on 1/23/2008 5:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well the real truth on whether the earth can cope with more humans or not is just that we don't really know. Anybody or group can create a theory to support their view from known facts but the bottom line is still the same. We just don't know.


RE: In other news...
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 5:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your wrong on that fact, resources are stretched at a mere 75 years old poeple.
Can you please provide some additional information supporting this assertion? Some links or references to scientific journals would be cool.


RE: In other news...
By Manch on 1/23/2008 5:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
Well, help us out then!

Remember! down the road not across the street!


One Possible Advantage
By JediJeb on 1/23/2008 5:55:23 PM , Rating: 3
Just imagine if Einstein could have had a life span of 800 years. Maybe we would all be using safe fusion powered vehicles now. If people had hundreds of years to work on their ideas instead of only tens of years could more problems be solved? If people had such a long lifetime that future problems would be problems in their lifetime instead of the lifetime of future generations only, would that make people more apt to solve the problems instead of simply patching them over until they did not have to worry about them anymore?

Maybe there would be more problems, maybe most would be solved, but it is an interesting thing to consider what might happen with longer lifetimes.




RE: One Possible Advantage
By corduroygt on 1/23/2008 6:35:20 PM , Rating: 3
I could play and finish all the RPG's I wanted :)


RE: One Possible Advantage
By DKWinsor on 1/23/2008 11:12:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's counter-intuitive, but people need to die for science to advance.

Who would you believe, a 300 year old legend called Newton or some unknown 30 year old clerk?

If you'd expect Newton to "be reasonable" then you forget just how irrational people can be about their beliefs. Many a scientist has taken his own idea to the grave. Many a new theory has been shunned until the old are thorougly discredited.

So you can add another to the list of things to die for. Your mate, your country, chocolate, and now science.


RE: One Possible Advantage
By rcc on 1/24/2008 4:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
However, part of the reluctance of older people to change is the pressure of old age/death. And the mental health issues involved. They just don't have time late in life to admit they missed something.

If people had 500 year lifespans, I'm betting that many of them would take the time to have many different careers, pursue a wide variety of interests, etc.

If someone of Einstein's caliber got bored with physics and switched to biology, what might they discover with the wealth of experience in another field to draw on.

Of course we need new ideas and fresh blood, but the possibilities (and hazards) inherent in a longer lifespan are endless.


RE: One Possible Advantage
By amanojaku on 1/23/2008 11:39:43 PM , Rating: 3
For God's sake, if everyone lived forever I'd never get away from stories about Brittany, Lindsay and Paris. They damn sure better legalize euthanasia. Where's Kevorkian?!? It's MY time to go, damn it!


beware the cure......
By marvdmartian on 1/23/2008 4:04:54 PM , Rating: 4
....especially the side effects that turn the human race (with the exception of one immune individual) into a race of mutant freak zombie cannibals with no hair!!

Hey, that's a good idea for a screenplay.......let me write that one down........




RE: beware the cure......
By darkpuppet on 1/23/2008 4:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, there was a whole colony of individuals on the set of The Village that were immune too.


RE: beware the cure......
By FITCamaro on 1/23/2008 4:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
What if I want to be a mutant zombie cannibal freak?


RE: beware the cure......
By PlasmaBomb on 1/23/2008 5:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
RE: beware the cure......
By dluther on 1/23/2008 5:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hey, that's a good idea for a screenplay.......let me write that one down........


And see if Will Smith is available for the lead, if Charlton Heston isn't around anymore...


Hurray, something in my field on here
By nismotigerwvu on 1/23/2008 5:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
As a biochemist these sort of breakthroughs are quite interesting to me. But, just so that everyone knows, playing with telomeres (either directly or through telomerase activity) and other "anti-aging" agents typically is just circumventing a cell's anti-cancer machinery. I should probably also mention that cancer cells are immortal (given proper flow of nutrients and whatnot).




RE: Hurray, something in my field on here
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 6:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
You don't think that potentially increasing the Hayflack limit has potential, albeit risks?


RE: Hurray, something in my field on here
By jhinoz on 1/23/2008 10:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
As a member of the great unwashed I'm not 100% sure what's going on here. Apologies in advance for wasting your time with stupid questions.

If we could increase the upper limit of successful cell divisions, (what is it now 50ish?) surely that's a good thing?

How is it being done? I thought once the cell ran out of telomere then other DNA material gets lost in division and it's game over for that cell, so you'd either need to lose less buffer each time or increase the amount of buffer? Is there another way?


By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 11:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "surely that's a good thing?"

Personally, I'd take a bet on it, but its not a "sure" thing. It's thought that the Hayflick limit functions, by forcing senescence, as one of our primary cancer defenses. If so, a higher limit raises the risk of cancer, perhaps substantially.

> "How is it being done?"

Cancer cells manage it, by somehow reactivating telomerase-encoding genes. If we could manage it in a more controlled manner, it certainly could lead to longevity-increasing treatments.


The Stones
By spbosu on 1/23/2008 5:12:47 PM , Rating: 5
Why is this news? Keith Richards is already 250 years old.




Woohoo
By cloh2083 on 1/23/2008 7:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
Keep them coming - with a couple more hundred years under our belts, we might just live to see Star Trek/Star Wars. Space colonization should solve the increase in population.




RE: Woohoo
By jabber on 1/24/2008 9:51:27 AM , Rating: 3
You might see Star Trek but you wont see Star Wars, it already took place.

"A long long time ago in a galaxy......."


Wrong Picture!
By akugami on 1/23/2008 4:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
I feel the editors at DT blew the picture on this one. Where are the blue eyes amid a desert background? Come on Dune folks, Dune!




RE: Wrong Picture!
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 4:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, Charlton Heston is WAY funnier.


Probably not applicable
By tmouse on 1/24/2008 8:31:51 AM , Rating: 4
Well being someone involved in stem cell research myself ( I have even worked at the Roswell Park institute) I feel the observations are interesting but probably not applicable to us. You cannot extrapolate an increase in the lifespan of single cell organisms to multicellular organisms, its apples to oranges. First off caloric restriction does increase lifespan, in almost all organisms studied. Important caveat: IN LABORATORY CONDITIONS (if you live in a perti dish or live in a totally controlled environment this could work for you but be forewarned it requires at least a 50% decrease in caloric content). Clearly an over abundance of food leads to increases in reactive metabolites and this is not good. However you also weaken the immune system and things like wound repair slow down. It is not possible to determine the effects on higher brain functions like cognitive ability in animal models, running a maze is not the same thing as solving quadratic equations. I suspect all functions are equally slowed down. Second all stem cell factors to date are also oncogenes, is just a matter of coordinated regulation, since SCH9 is homologous to Akt/PKB (an important kinase)I would not want to knock it out. As a complex organism our cells must be in sync, with some cells almost never dividing and others almost continuously dividing. Our understanding of gene regulatory cascades is still quite infantile and systems biology is just starting to take off but we have a long way to go. Even though we are making great strides we are no where even close to being able to even conceive of messing with the cell cycles in multicellular organisms and to do so would be scientifically unjustifiable (you would be changing multitudes of variables and trying to make sense out of the resulting mess). Having said this I feel the work in interesting and in all probability the real interest for these groups are in the opposite track which would be to find ways to identify and perhaps target and kill immortal cells. Don’t wait for science to come up with a pill to increase your lifespan (its frankly unlikely) and we certainly do not want to be messing with our genomes to “improve” things (remember how well your kids Christmas presents were put together when we did not read the instructions? Well you have over a million times more understanding about assembling them then we do about the functional relationships between genes). Want to live longer here is the great scientific secret: do things in moderation, for most of us eat a little less, get some exercise, enjoy life (in moderation)try to relieve some stress. Please do not tell anyone I let this out ;)




Like something out of the Ender series
By Orbs on 1/23/2008 6:15:18 PM , Rating: 3
Bean so needs this.




As a result...
By Basilisk on 1/24/2008 10:11:03 AM , Rating: 3
I expect Congress would find a way to 10x all their terms in response to this: 60 year Senatorial terms, 20 year Congressional seats, and 40 year Presidential terms. In response, intelligent life forms would commit massive self-extinction and human life would devolve to its lowest forms: lawyers, insurance agents, tel-evangelists and race-walkers. :P




Hooray
By dflynchimp on 1/23/2008 4:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
I might even live to see mankind destroy itself and the rest of the Earth if that was the case XD...oh wait...I might see that happen regardless....damn...




The thought of living 750 years
By Sylar on 1/23/2008 5:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
would decrease my lifespan by 675 so in the end, it all works out.




Coming soon -- Monistat 70!
By dluther on 1/23/2008 5:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
I know it's lame, but I just couldn't help myself...




Why does everyone assume...
By DanoruX on 1/23/2008 7:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
...that we'd maintain our current reproductive habits? I could see people still having the same number of kids during their lifetime, though many might procrastinate till they're a few hundred years old before having kids, thus not making lifespan a large contributing factor to the increasing population.




Another Way...
By AggressorPrime on 1/23/2008 7:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
While this may be awesome, I think we need to find something that not only slows down growth but in effect stops it. Probably the best solution would be reached once the nano age catches up with us and we can build machines the size of red blood cells. Then these machines can repair/renew dying cells. I would love to have billions of nanoprobes sitting in my bloodstream as if I were a borg. Resistance to technology is futile!




Gary
By v1001 on 1/23/2008 8:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well at least we know what a 700 year old man will look like. Just have a look at Gary Busey.




Goodbye Planet Earth
By XtAzY on 1/24/2008 2:04:58 AM , Rating: 2
If the lifespan did increase greatly, so does the increase number of trees being destroyed. Population will most likely be a nightmare, unless we live in Super Giant planets




Sadly..
By AsicsNow on 1/24/2008 9:33:07 AM , Rating: 2
What this article doesn't tell you however is that Humans already have all of the easy changes to our genomes for allowing us to live longer. Read a few books on genetics or take a few classes and ask about this and you will learn that unfortunantly its not so simple to extend our lifespans. If we really wanted to do this, we'd need to find a efficient way of repairing people's genomes from a lifetime of mutations (and also have a sequence of their non mutated genome). Unfortunantly, it cost millions of dollars to simply sequence a single persons genome at the moment and we have no good methods as of yet for modifying (aka repairing) one's genome on a large scale (and not really any truly good methods on a small scale either, which is why gene therapy is still strugling in its infancy)




We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs








Latest Blog Posts