Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Ok-Prior-8856 OP t1_j9hly39 wrote

The article points out:

> [...] before we can celebrate Rejuvenate Bio's discoveries as a scientific breakthrough, outside researchers will need to go through the startup's claims with a fine-toothed comb.

Because even if this did rejuvenate mice testing will be needed for both safety and efficacy in humans.

Skepticism aside, here's hoping this is a step forward for life extension!

47

FuturologyBot t1_j9hq2vu wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Ok-Prior-8856:

The article points out:

> [...] before we can celebrate Rejuvenate Bio's discoveries as a scientific breakthrough, outside researchers will need to go through the startup's claims with a fine-toothed comb.

Because even if this did rejuvenate mice testing will be needed for both safety and efficacy in humans.

Skepticism aside, here's hoping this is a step forward for life extension!

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/118kk88/scientists_say_they_gene_hacked_mice_to_double/j9hly39/

1

ikediggety t1_j9hqx9j wrote

This is a terrible, awful, idea. This planet is already collapsing under the weight of eight billion normal human lifespans. Doubling the amount of impact each person has on the earth would be civilization ending.

−24

pmaurant t1_j9hvysv wrote

If it can give me the body I had when I was in my 20s sure.

184

BFGWV t1_j9hywcb wrote

A while back I heard something like this was being worked on for people... and my first thought was, "If I gotta have arthritis twice as long, forget it."

−2

weaselpoopcoffee1 t1_j9hyxtc wrote

Finally I'll be able to work long enough to fund my retirement at age 130.

0

Blackmail30000 t1_j9i0f45 wrote

Replying to ikediggety (#1,910,697)

Having a longer lifespan =/= more kids. In fact it has proven to be quite the opposite. The longer we live, the less kids we have. Our population would most likely shrink because of this. This trend is often mirrored in other animals. Longer lived animals tend to have less kids.

11

FranticAudi t1_j9i1mgw wrote

Do this with dogs and cats and make billions, and then humans, make more billions.

86

Josh12345_ t1_j9i28dw wrote

That's great and all, but how will it affect us 99.99999999 percenters?

It's not like the Average Joe is going to get any of this technology. Whereas the billionaires and politicians will get to live longer and parasitize us even longer.

−8

AssociateGreen t1_j9i2nlr wrote

So one of these test mice has to be named Gene Hackmouse, right?

36

adfaer t1_j9i33c8 wrote

Amazing! I think life extension is coming sooner than people think. I hope it comes in time for my parents to take advantage of it, too.

Will people please stop the billionaire circlejerk, no medicine has ever been available only to billionaires. Altered Carbon is not a documentary.

62

arevealingrainbow t1_j9i3gpw wrote

> “In tests, the company found that treated mice lived on for another 18 weeks on average. Those who were not treated in a control group only lived for another nine weeks. Overall, they say, the gene hacked mice lived roughly seven percent longer overall”

49

kirpid t1_j9i40rf wrote

Too bad we’re not mice.

Can they at least move on to monkeys? Or something that lives longer than a decade?

1

TemetN t1_j9i50bu wrote

Replying to adfaer (#1,912,188)

At a guess? Given doomposting really took off with the pandemic, I suspect it's a cultural reckoning with untreated mental health issues and a lack of decent coping mechanisms. It's not even just the pandemic, these rates have been rising for a decade or more, I suspect we're going to find out something like a common type of plastic causes mental health issues (among other things - the same diet these days has different effects, which implies it's more than that).

9

NVincarnate t1_j9i5acj wrote

I really hope clinical trials are finished within the next 20 years. This would make living long enough to see the advent of age-reversing gene therapy a possibility for more people.

7

QualifiedApathetic t1_j9i6hxi wrote

Replying to dalumbr (#1,912,391)

I don't see how it possibly works without severe population controls. Frankly, there's about as many humans on the planet as there ought to be, probably more.

That said, Americans will probably get first look considering the bulk of the work is being done and funded here. And the US has a VERY low population density compared to other countries -- a measly 35 people per square kilometer. Russia, Canada, and Australia with 8, 4, and 3 people per square kilometer, respectively, but they all have much more uninhabitable wasteland.

The US could support a much larger population even without taking advancements in food science into account, but with no one dying of old age, it wouldn't take too long before we reached the danger zone. We'd still need restrictions on population. Personally, I'm hoping that Christians, being a literal death cult, will decide that life-extending treatments are the devil's work and anyone who gets them is going to Hell.

6

RobsEvilTwin t1_j9i7ked wrote

Replying to QualifiedApathetic (#1,912,569)

>Russia, Canada, and Australia with 8, 4, and 3 people per square kilometer, respectively, but they all have much more uninhabitable wasteland.

~98% of Australians live on ~10% of the land, which is why the average figure is so low.

Even so out cities are much less crowded than most places you could visit. I live in a capital city which is mostly trees outside the CBD.

4

dalumbr t1_j9i90wn wrote

Replying to QualifiedApathetic (#1,912,569)

I think it depends rather highly on how the causes of death are impacted, and the nature of the extension.

If it's what I think it is, it's more or less stretching out the body's decay, rather than just adding a number of years in a specific physical state. So people that randomly die at any point after 50 are still going to, rather than living forever. That's an issue for a far, far improved version of this treatment, if it's ever possible.

Going by the 7% figure in the study, 7 years assuming a lifespan of 100 would figure into maybe 3 or 4 at an optimal age if applied early enough, and wouldn't really impact average society beyond a slight increase across the board. It's not exactly an immediate exponential increase, though it could snowball into one.

Then again, with the average age of parents steadily rising, it might not seriously impact birthrate at all.

2

Shelsonw t1_j9i9zv0 wrote

First people to benefit will be the ultra rich. Let’s be real, None of us normies will ever really be able to afford the treatment; and so the rich will just get richer because they’ll never die, and never have to pass on their wealth through death and inheritance taxes. Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to toil and die.

EDIT: I find it funny that people downvote this, you know damn well I’m right lol. This treatment will be expensive as all hell, and whatever company that’s doing it will want to earn every dollar they can

−5

Desperate_Food7354 t1_j9ibzbz wrote

Replying to BFGWV (#1,911,696)

seems to be a big mis conception amongst new comers to the world of anti aging, but we are not trying to simply slow your death, but reverse it. Unless you change the underlying mechanism in a fetus you will age. However, reversing your age over and over again is the idea.

3

QualifiedApathetic t1_j9icbh2 wrote

Replying to dalumbr (#1,912,831)

Well...what I really want is to get my 20s back. A do-over. Extra years would be nice, but I don't love the idea of finding a way to only slow the aging process just to watch my body deteriorate more gradually than I expected (it's already a fair ways into the process). So if it's just that, I'm only mildly interested.

It's a different study, but you might have heard about one where they basically made mice young again. You're right, a big question mark, whatever they come up with, is how we die instead. We'll have to see what role cancer and accidents play. Although, we're working on curing cancer, and automobiles, for example, are way safer than when I was born. There are car models whose rate of death is statistically zero. It's so much safer to get in an accident than it used to be.

And, as I said, we'll have to see who actually opts for treatments. Fingers crossed that right-wing Christians would rather die, but they come up with those beliefs post hoc. They certainly get chemotherapy for their cancer to delay going to heaven.gif

3

ToolTime100 t1_j9icdfq wrote

I'm sure some billionaires are already using the stuff

−4

dantesmaster00 t1_j9iibhm wrote

Why would you want to double the lifespan. Like the world ain’t great I don’t want to live on it until I turn 160

−5

cyberentomology t1_j9ij0x0 wrote

They’re laboratory mice / their genes have been spliced / they’re Pinky and the Brain

5

IllJoinYakult t1_j9ikw3h wrote

That’s rat news. More medical advancements for the rats! At this rate they’re going to be immortal.

3

jawshoeaw t1_j9irs91 wrote

So here’s the thing. Mice can life 6 months or 3 years . They are designed so to speak to adapt to food scarcity or plenty. We are not

1

freakdageek t1_j9istzb wrote

Somebody’s gotta figure out what to do with all these mice. What’s left? Let’s see if we can make em really tiny. Tiny little mice. That’d be cute. Unless there was a bunch of em at once. Thousands of teeny tiny mice would be horrifying. Nope. That does it. I’ve changed my mind. Keep making em older. It’s not cute, sure. But it’s not quite horrifying, either. Good on ya, mice scientists! Ya found a good one.

3

skillywilly56 t1_j9iystm wrote

Your inability to write a headline has given me cancer

2

heycanwediscuss t1_j9j4ap6 wrote

Replying to Glodraph (#1,915,588)

Yes but science is gradual. In 50 years we went from hello world to chatgpt. Probably had the tech almost 20 years ago. Of course there's marketing but it isn't always necessary to leave that angle

7

noobductive t1_j9j4qbd wrote

Replying to FranticAudi (#1,912,016)

Feels kinda unethical to give your companion animals unnaturally longer lifespan/ a form of immortality. They can’t really agree to it. People do it for themselves more than anything. There’s a point in life where you have to accept it’s time to let go of your loved ones, instead of forcing it.

−1

RantControl t1_j9j52qc wrote

Who actually wants more of this? Especially as an old person with failing mind and body.

0

First-Translator966 t1_j9jczpq wrote

Replying to adfaer (#1,912,177)

Unfortunately, I fear my parents (70’s) are too old. I’m probably borderline to reach escape velocity. I just hope my kids will be able to get me at a high energy/reasonably healthy state through their parenthood period.

3

First-Translator966 t1_j9jdfxd wrote

Replying to homeboy321321321 (#1,910,516)

Assuming it would be at an equivalent of 20-40 years old, I would LOVE to live indefinitely. There is just so much to do. Imagine having virtually infinite time to learn languages to read books in their original tongue, to travel the world, build your own house by hand, take up art mediums or musical instruments and become world class, and on and on.

Gosh, I can think of thousands of years worth of activities I would love to indulge in! And by the time I’m done doing those things, imagine how many more things there would be?

7

ShadyInternetGuy t1_j9jhg09 wrote

This would be cool if it works on rats, I'd love my pet rats to live longer then a couple of years!

2

ItsAConspiracy t1_j9ji5xy wrote

Replying to DeepSpaceWarlock (#1,914,601)

In the real world, birth rates are plummeting as populations urbanize. Most countries are facing demographic crashes over the next couple decades, and very low birth rates after that. Anti-aging could save economies and retirement systems.

7

Ok-Lawfulness-5739 t1_j9jj3yv wrote

We’ve been discussing these type of things on r/LongevityHub . Thank you OP for posting this and im glad the community here likes longevity topics. ☺️

3

Littleman88 t1_j9jv2h9 wrote

Replying to Glodraph (#1,915,588)

They need the funding. Once they show provable results, the people with money will start pouring a bunch of it into the research hoping to extend their lives well beyond current standards.

0

Littleman88 t1_j9jvcwh wrote

Replying to ItsAConspiracy (#1,917,358)

I think there might be a rebound effect with longer living individuals. Especially if we can mix in restoring fertility on top of anti-aging. For a lot of people, not having kids is a mix of never finding someone to have kids with as well as establishing for themselves a stable future to raise any, which isn't happening within 20-30 years anymore.

6

Glodraph t1_j9jxtli wrote

Replying to Littleman88 (#1,918,872)

Showing provable results is way more difficult than it seems and these new info is only to attract investors and money. It's way more difficult than altering a buch of genes (which we still can't do in a super secure, efficient and safe way) and call it a day. Most of aging also comes from food, exercise, pollution etc..good luck removing microplastics and pfas from the body even if you're a billionaire.

1

ItsAConspiracy t1_j9k1oww wrote

Replying to Littleman88 (#1,918,913)

Eventually, population will start rising again if the anti-aging tech is good enough. But in that eventual higher-tech future we might also have cheap fusion, cheap space travel, and really compact food synthesis, so we'll be able to support much larger populations. We're making progress towards all of these things.

5

KnightOfNothing t1_j9kfy0n wrote

Replying to LibertarianAtheist_ (#1,916,206)

very interesting. I always wondered about the hostility towards the quest to defeat aging and thought it was always just the crab mentality of people too afraid to take it but also afraid of being the only aging person in their social circles.

guess this reasoning is more rooted in reality.

3

Snaz5 t1_j9kiz28 wrote

Can we apply this to Fancy Rats so they live longer than 2 years? 🥺

4

LibertarianAtheist_ t1_j9kjv6x wrote

Replying to JackIsBackWithCrack (#1,921,674)

>If you’re already old then you will probably stay that way.

Νο.

Νο one is working on stopping metabolism from creating damage, but instead reversing aging. Whether it's Aubrey de Grey's damage-repair approach, Altos Labs' Yamanaka based cellural reprogramming, etc.

It's called rejuvenation medicine.

5

SvenTheGnat t1_j9km4c3 wrote

There's a Gene Hackman joke in that article title somewhere.

2

mi2h_N0t-r34l_ t1_j9kmii9 wrote

An animal which cannot, or will not, improve their body on their own, of their own volition, especially when they have a means of doing so is an animal, correct?

1

Venboven t1_j9koane wrote

Replying to SomewhereFree8581 (#1,912,403)

Honestly, true gym bros are usually really helpful and appreciate it when others show an interest in their hobby.

There would probably be at least one guy willing to help show you around the gym and start training.

11

SomewhereFree8581 t1_j9kpa2e wrote

Replying to Venboven (#1,922,335)

That's what I'm saying if you don't have my comedic tone and Appalachian accent, you might try not calling the whole gym pussies. But there's generally someone in a gym that's cool as hell and knows a disturbing amount about anatomy. They will pump you up.

4

skunding t1_j9l5ii5 wrote

I thought the title said “Scientist say they gone hacked mice to double remaining lifespan”

1

EBJLEnjoyer t1_j9l7v67 wrote

Replying to adfaer (#1,912,177)

>Amazing! I think life extension is coming sooner than people think. I hope it comes in time for my parents to take advantage of it, too.

Me too!

>Will people please stop the billionaire circlejerk, no medicine has ever been available only to billionaires. Altered Carbon is not a documentary

People have to realize that billionaires are businessmen first and foremost. Businessmen want to make money more than anything else, and an anti-aging drug would absolutely make them trillionaires.

1

m4vis t1_j9lg6nc wrote

Imagine trying to apply for a job at 30 and the other applicants have 50 years of experience and 6 degrees

1

First-Translator966 t1_j9llzf9 wrote

Replying to Mississimia (#1,910,740)

Far more bold to assume it won’t be. Every piece of technological advancement in human history has made it to the masses. Doesn’t matter if it’s mechanical, electronic or medicinal. This too will make it to the masses. There’s too much money to be made for it not to, and the technology will, like every piece of technology, become cheaper over time.

1

First-Translator966 t1_j9lmwy5 wrote

Replying to m4vis (#1,925,984)

One consequence of radical life extension will likely be a radical reorientation of work. So much of what we do economically is based on our limited productive years of life. We basically race from 20 to 65 to save enough to deal with our unproductive 70’s through death. If age related death is off the table, people will likely work much less. Or maybe they work the same amount, but take periodic retirements. I think of raising children — imagine your productive life span isn’t limited. You work for 40 years, but instead of permanent retirement, you take off 15 years while you raise your children.

Lots of possibilities for a much more rewarding life.

2

Trains-Planes-2023 t1_j9ltyal wrote

Standard caveat: things that work in mouse models rarely work in primates.

1

Ok-Lawfulness-5739 t1_j9m8wwb wrote

Thanks for posting this. I hope futurology isnt fatigued from too many life extension posts. But im glad to see this here.

1