Aging is reversible?

[LadyStanley]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-cells-and-live-mice/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20161215

New research suggests it is possible to slow or even reverse aging, at least in mice, by undoing changes in gene activity—the same kinds of changes that are caused by decades of life in humans.
By tweaking genes that turn adult cells back into embryoniclike ones, researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies reversed the aging of mouse and human cells in vitro, extended the life of a mouse with an accelerated-aging condition and successfully promoted recovery from an injury in a middle-aged mouse, according to a study published Thursday in Cell.

So, Ponce de Leon's fountain is out of business?

Click to read more...

 

[Winger98]

quick, someone tell Peter Thiel he no longer has to bathe in the blood of the young.

 

[Bluelines]

... but that comes with a caveat that even if they reverse aging, the human body has a shelf life of about 150 years max.

 

[Eisen]

... but that comes with a caveat that even if they reverse aging, the human body has a shelf life of about 150 years max.

That still would mean you live about twice as long. And imagine what it does to your youth. I didn't know what I want and just winged it as I went along. I can't be the only one that felt that way. You could have forty years of schooling and make a mature and informed decision.

 

[dogbazinho]

More than likely it would mean 75 more years of work. Living longer would have a cost. Not just directly but also in terms of resource strain.

 

[Eisen]

More than likely it would mean 75 more years of work. Living longer would have a cost. Not just directly but also in terms of resource strain.

I think rigid birth control would be the first step once this age is attainable for the majority.

 

[IWD]

I've always viewed aging as making a photocopy of a copy ad nauseum. Eventually the accompanying mistakes cause breakdowns. There are life history traits that are genetic, I agree, but they also have to correct for free radicals and the such that cause problems in the ground game as well.

 

[Bluelines]

More than likely it would mean 75 more years of work. Living longer would have a cost. Not just directly but also in terms of resource strain.

It would also mean more people get cancer, my Doctor once told me that everyone will get cancer sometime in their life if they live long enough, its not if, its when.

I wonder what the quality of life would be? It takes about 30 years of working to build up a decent net worth for most average middle class people, once you have your mortgage paid off, once you have all your bills paid off, that net wealth will start to accumulate very quickly. Think about the impacts that this would have to developing nations.

Think about the cost this would have if a person could live to 150 years on prisons systems, on universal health care?

 

[Diamondillium]

It would also mean more people get cancer, my Doctor once told me that everyone will get cancer sometime in their life if they live long enough, its not if, its when.

I wonder what the quality of life would be? It takes about 30 years of working to build up a decent net worth for most average middle class people, once you have your mortgage paid off, once you have all your bills paid off, that net wealth will start to accumulate very quickly. Think about the impacts that this would have to developing nations.

Think about the cost this would have if a person could live to 150 years on prisons systems, on universal health care?

If a life expectancy jump that drastic occurred all at once to the entire population, there would definitely need to be an immediate and severe restructuring to the core foundation of many of the base societal systems. It would be a hectic century or so.