Harvard scientists reverse the ageing process in mice – now for humans

Harvard scientists were surprised that they saw a dramatic reversal, not just a slowing down, of the ageing in mice. Now they believe they might be able to regenerate human organs

Guardian

Well this is certainly interesting! I wouldn't be surprised if the elite used this technology to keep themselves forever young in there NWO!

Obviously after they have got rid of the majority of us.

Anyway what are your views ATS

Side effects include, Increased cheese desire, buck teeth, and a tail. Please consult a physician if you grow large circular ears and begin to eat things by holding them with both hands and nibbling.

Yea, I think they need more time before testing it on humans.

i read that it is a gene that causes aging and some creatures such as the giant turtle dont have this gene so they could potentially live for ever if they lived in a glass casket with no bad germs or viruses etc...
they surely couldnt start making us live forever though as where would we all go when the world would get so overcrowded.

Just what the world doesn't need.

There's a damn good reason organisms grow old and die. The terror that western culture has over this concept is, frankly, perverse and dangerous.

You're born, you learn, you age, you die. You decompose, fueling the nutritional needs of the organisms at the bottom of the food chain, and they eventually get eaten by your descendants. It's worked just fine for three billion years, mucking it up for fear and vanity seems like a rather silly idea.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Let's say in the future we solve the overpopulation problem (Interstellar colonies, etc) what would be wrong with keeping yourself young for indefinite periods of time?

I mean, going by your reasoning we shouldnt even bother taking medicine for our illnesses since getting sick and dying is a natural thing that occurs.

Going by the whole food chain argument, maybe it is a natural process for a species to discover the means for prolongation of lifespan.

I can see the benefits of the knowledge and wisdom a 200 year old man would have.

If we develop any sort of immortality then the gaps between the stars shrink a little and with an ability that we probably have already to travel these gaps the earth needs not get crowded. I personally think the time we get for our lives is a joke. I would not mind 1000 years or so, or even 10,000 years or more.

reply to post by _Highlander_


It really is a short life-span, but although I wouldn't mind living an extra 100 years, I would still like to eventually die after living a long life. I don't know, living forever seems like it would eventually become akin to being in hell to me.

There is something to be said about that first aquatic organism that attempted to make its way on to land.

There is something to be said about that first human who desired to cross a huge body of water.

There is something to be said about that first engineer who yearned to mimic the birds and soar into the heavens.

There is something to be said about the first man to be shot into the stars, beyond Earth's reach.

There is something to be said about progress.
Is it dangerous? Always. Does it open up unknown doors? Absolutely. Can we see the potential of its greatness in its early phases? Not a chance.

This is what we do, life, we persist and we progress. What happens from here on out is anyone's guess. But I'll tell you, I wouldn't mind being a solemn, forever young observer of humanity in all of its failures and triumphs until the end. The concept sounds scifi, I know, but it could be a reality now. As for the elite, they won't be able to keep this to themselves.
As soon as the issue of cancerous cells is taken care of, this technology can revolutionize humanity sending us into the next level of our progression.
However, with everything...
We have to balance prudence with recklessness

i see the future, there are no visably old people and everyone has a termination chip planted in them so when they hit a certain age your gone, we could even have lotterys with the winner getting a double life and the very rich can choose to go on for as long as they please.

This is good news for the medical advancement of our civilisation, provided it is just used to regenerate damaged tissue. However, we all know the path this technology could take. The rich and the powerful could afford continuous regeneration. Imagine it now, Kim Jong il ruling China forever. Dangerous? I think so.

We should have realised by now that death is an integral part of life, and to bypass that final, fatal process is to dehumanise ourselves. What do you guys think?

reply to post by Somehumanbeing


Maybe a compromise would be a switch, an internal clock that if one day you tire of life you can trigger and set your self to unwind and die. That way you have the best of both worlds. If we have the ability to make ourselves immortal, then a switch to turn it off it does does not sound too far fetched.

Nothing wrong with this. We wouldn't live forever when we learned the lessons we chose to learn in a particular life we would die and take up a new life in different circumstances to learn new lessons. Some would live longer but we could live out our lives with youthful bodies. Initiated masters who have mastered the physical plane could live very long lives without having to reincarnate and help guide humanity if they so desired.

I doubt we will see this anytime soon. Sounds to me like there is a long ways to go before humans could benefit.

So the found a way to reverse the aging process. Well that's great, however there are already to many people on earth to roll this sort of treatment out, as the population is growing to fast and we have way to many people on earth living in poverty and starving to death.

The poor that cant afford the treatment would not want to stop having children just so that the rich can live longer...

Solutions = Depopulation = Rich been able to roll out treatment to live longer

BTW Im not saying I support depopulation, just pointing it out

reply to post by RandalFlagg


that's misleading.

First, they genetically modified (mutilated?) mice so telomerase was absent, ruining their health

Then, they substituted said enzyme by injection,

Which restored their health.


Q: what happens if the enzyme is used on healthy mice? - not within the scope of the article.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Just what the world doesn't need.

There's a damn good reason organisms grow old and die. The terror that western culture has over this concept is, frankly, perverse and dangerous.

You're born, you learn, you age, you die. You decompose, fueling the nutritional needs of the organisms at the bottom of the food chain, and they eventually get eaten by your descendants. It's worked just fine for three billion years, mucking it up for fear and vanity seems like a rather silly idea.

Perhaps in some cases it's not out of fear or vanity, but out of wanting to experience more from life than what is possible in our ridiculously short lifespans. There is simply no way one can do everything or learn everything one wants to before they die of natural reasons.

I would give anything to take a leisurely stroll through life for a few thousand years, to explore every facet of existence and to learn every aspect of human knowledge. Just imagine the many many many contributions one could make to all of humanity!

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

You're born, you learn, you age, you die. You decompose ...

You first.

The point of gaining a lifetime's worth of knowledge and experience if your body won't let you put it to good use is?

Oh, and what about interstellar travel? Seems like removing the aging barrier would help make that possible.

wouldn't be a bad idea to keep our brightest minds around for as long as possible.

maybe then we can get leaders with enough experience

reply to post by Long Lance


Telomerase has been known about for years, this experiment was presumably to confirm what everyone already thought.

The enzyme occurs naturally in useful quantities in some plants, and is quite safe at low concentrations.
However, it can cause the lifespan of cancerous cells to increase as well as the healthy ones, so be warned.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Advancing science is more important than ethics

After a few natural disasters, nuclear wars, we should keep our population below 500 million.

Then immortality would be great.