Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blood of World's Oldest Woman Hints At Limits of Life

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the telomere-more-about-this dept.

Science 333

porkchop_d_clown (39923) writes "When Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper died in 2005, she was the oldest woman in the world. [New Scientist reported Wednesday] that, at the end of her life, most of her white blood cells had been produced by just two stem cells — implying the rest of her blood stem cells had already died, and hinting at a possible limit to the human life span."

cancel ×

333 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Old News (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840515)

Isn't this old news?

Re:Old News (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840757)

I see what you did there.

Re:Old News (2, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 5 months ago | (#46840821)

Isn't this old news?

I see what you did there.

Re:Old News (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46841097)

Isn't this old news?

I see what you did there.

I see what you did there.

Re:Old News (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46841213)

Isn't this old news?

Quite literally. She was the worlds oldest living woman when she passed away almost 10 years ago.

One would have thought we would have reached into the fridge to study that sample by now...

And you thought the backlog at the patent office was bad.

Bank them (2)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 5 months ago | (#46840533)

If this is a critical factor for maintaining longevity it would seem to be a simple task to save up and grow a supply of stem cells when one is younger. The cord blood industry is essentially doing this now.

Re:Bank them (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 5 months ago | (#46840695)

If this is a critical factor for maintaining longevity ...

It is not clear that it is. So far there is ONE data point. Before we start extrapolating, we might want to look at some other old people.

Re:Bank them (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840899)

But they smell funny..

Re:Bank them (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 5 months ago | (#46841113)

But they smell funny..

So then just look.

Re:Bank them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840843)

This puts stems cells in a new light for me. It's amazing.

Re:Bank them (5, Insightful)

briancox2 (2417470) | about 5 months ago | (#46840981)

Really? You're trying to solve this "problem"?

My thought upon reading this story was, "Oh, thank God!!"

I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick. I was beginning to fear that the medical community was going to try to force any level of existence to continue without regard to quality. Death is a part of life. I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.

Try working in the healthcare field. You'll see that that is the norm. Older patients often would be fine with letting go. But the family falls apart emotionally and pushes for ANY MEANS POSSIBLE to save them. It's pathetic. And it costs our healthcare industry billions that could be spent much better.

Re:Bank them (4, Insightful)

danbert8 (1024253) | about 5 months ago | (#46841013)

Sadly it doesn't stop with death too. Many more billions are wasted in the funeral racket. In my family my grandmother is a very simple and humble woman, but her darn kids keep insisting on fancy expensive gravestones and caskets in her end of life planning. It's like, you realize we are just going to throw dirt on this right? And she won't be "comfortable" regardless of how many pillows are in there.

Re:Bank them (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 5 months ago | (#46841195)

I humbly submit that, being in the healthcare field, you are seeing a higher concentration of misery than exists in the population-at-large. Just like an ER doctor in NY would assume that taxi cabs are the single largest cause of death and injury in the world.

Re:Bank them (5, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | about 5 months ago | (#46841229)

Death is a part of life.

Death is a part of life. That doesn't mean it's good or shouldn't be fought against. Smallpox used to be a part of life too, and I doubt anyone's life is made worse by not having it around anymore.

I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.

The idea of longevity research, of course, is to make 100 year old body indistinguishable from a 20 year old body, not merely to "keep the heart beating".

And it costs our healthcare industry billions that could be spent much better.

Really? On what, for example?

Re:Bank them (4, Funny)

Chelloveck (14643) | about 5 months ago | (#46841251)

I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick.

Nah, science has just identified the thing that needs to be tricked. We just need fresh stem cells. I, for one, am going to assure that I get a steady supply of stem cells by eating a baby for breakfast each morning.

Re:Bank them (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 5 months ago | (#46841257)

I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.

False dichotomy. If we manage one day to make 100 year old bodies to be more like today's 60 year old bodies, you'll have a different option.

Re:Bank them (2)

Soluzar (1957050) | about 5 months ago | (#46841523)

It would be interesting to see if your views change on by the 11th month of your 99th year. Assuming you survive that long.

Re:Bank them (3, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | about 5 months ago | (#46841527)

Funny how reactionaries always seem to think of life extension as living a long time as an old person rather than living a long time as a young person.

Such is life in idiocratic paradise.

Re:Bank them (3, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 5 months ago | (#46841549)

I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick.

There isn't. Our bodies are machines, no more no less, and ultimately science will solve every riddle they pose. Soon, fifty or a hundred years from now, the first immortals will be born. Who knows, perhaps they already have been.

So put more stem cells into people. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840541)

And then they live forever.

Re:So put more stem cells into people. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840687)

I already do this about once a month.

Well, every time the moon is full.

And it's not so much injections, more like bathing.

And not so much stem cells as the blood of virgins, who died from sheer fright.

I imagine there's certainly stem cells in the blood, but AFAIK the virginity and died-from-sheer-fright parts are what's mission-critical to the whole thing.

But if it turns out to be just stem cells I'm glad to hear it. Virgins are so much harder to find these days, particularly ones that will die from fright. This modern world and all it's wonders.

.

Re:So put more stem cells into people. (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46840799)

I'm not so sure that prolongs your life. If history is any indicator, such things usually led to significantly shortened lifespans. Usually involving mobs with pitchforks.

She was 115 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840553)

Since the summary didn't mention it, and I'm sure others were wondering.

Re:She was 115 (3, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 5 months ago | (#46840861)

Since the summary didn't mention it, and I'm sure others were wondering.

Ya. That first sentence could have been written: "When Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper died in 2005 at age 115, she was the oldest woman in the world."

Typing another 10 characters wouldn't have killed the submitter. And it would've spared many Slashdotters from puzzling through a tedious run-on sentence in the Wikipedia article.

Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46841271)

Yeah, and the summary could have been read to me. While I was on the couch.

Re:She was 115 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46841453)

You don't know what a run-on sentence is. That article hasn't been significantly edited recently, and there is no run-on sentence in it now.

Denial is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840563)

a hundred thousand dollar stem cell shot.

Quantity of life. (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840569)

Remember, consumer-capitalist dullards, quality of life is NOT important. What matters is that you CONSUME. Satisfy an insatiable, manufactured desire. Your economy needs YOU!

Re:Quantity of life. (1)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#46840607)

say the geeks who are always buying computer and electronic parts
but that's not consuming

real geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840733)

real geeks don't have to buy tech. tech is drawn to us like a magnet.

Re:Quantity of life. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46840823)

That's not consuming. That's ... that's ... investing!

At one time in the future, these gadgets will be really rare and expensive.

Re:Quantity of life. (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 5 months ago | (#46840699)

You are right. Living in caves and letting mother nature provide for our needs is the best way! Everything else is superfluous and should be put away.

You go ahead I will be right there! Trust me!

Re:Quantity of life. (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 5 months ago | (#46840783)

I always listen when people call me "dullard".

Re:Quantity of life. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46841037)

"Remember, consumer-capitalist dullards, quality of life is NOT important. What matters is that you CONSUME. Satisfy an insatiable, manufactured desire. Your economy needs YOU!"

You are so right! We are all born in sin, we are guilty at birth - we should have nothing that pleases us, we should have nothing at all, and wear only horse-hair garments in the name of the oppressed of the world because only through suffering can mankind be redeemed! Yay!

This is good news... (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 5 months ago | (#46840577)

Through science, humans excel at overcoming limits. I'm sure the limit to life for a standard human involves a lot more factors, but this gives us one significant wall to smash down.

Re:This is good news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840627)

Yes.... infinite un-dieing old people.
Like the original Dawn of the Dead zombies.
A worthy goal.

Re:This is good news... (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 5 months ago | (#46840723)

I shall quote myself:

I'm sure the limit to life for a standard human involves a lot more factors, but this gives us one significant wall to smash down.

Only reading the summary of an article and not the article itself is one thing. Only reading half of a one line post is a new low. Further, I see a lot of pessimism on Slashdot regarding super-longevity. I don't get it.

Re:This is good news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840753)

Further, I see a lot of pessimism on Slashdot regarding super-longevity. I don't get it.

It's the bucket-of-crabs syndrome, nobody here figures they'll be rich enough to get super longevity so they'd pull down everyone else.

Rich Alpha Testers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46841533)

I for one, welcome our rich Alpha testers and wish the ones substantially older than me lots of luck trailblazing in this area so I can get treated in the Beta or Gamma trials

Re:This is good news... (3, Informative)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#46841027)

> Further, I see a lot of pessimism on Slashdot regarding super-longevity. I don't get it.

You don't understand that super-longevity would be bad both due to over-population and entrenched interests that will not allow progress, or you don't understand how hard a problem life extension is?

Re:This is good news... (2)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 5 months ago | (#46841205)

Over population? Space, the final frontier...with humans genetically and technologically augmented to live off world in varied conditions. I put forward that many would take this to task. It is not often said here that we need to move a lot of the population off world for the species to survive. That has to happen somehow and sometime or we will die.

Also, at the pace that the science of super-longevity is unfolding, it is in parallel to, if not in tandem with, technologies that will allow ourselves to be freed from our biological and most importantly, cognitive limitations. We have reached a point where we can scarcely guess at scientific and technological advancements and achievements a few years in advance. In a matter of decades, it will no longer makes sense to bother guessing at a point we will not be able to see past. All human problems have constructive solutions.

Re:This is good news... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46841129)

Further, I see a lot of pessimism on Slashdot regarding super-longevity. I don't get it.

I can think of a few reasons:

- living a long time is one thing; living a long time old and infirm is another.

- if significant numbers of people stop dying, and more people are being born everyday, on a planet with finite resources.. you see the problem.

- wealth envy

- other reasons that do not immediately spring to mind

Re:This is good news... (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 5 months ago | (#46841249)

I address most of that in my replies to other replies to my post in this thread. Rather than quoting myself on all of it, I will simply quote this from my last reply: All human problems have constructive solutions.

If that's not enough then read the all of my replies.

Re:This is good news... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46841425)

In fairness, you didn't ask for solutions, you just said you didn't understand the pessimism.

I was trying to help you with that.

Re:This is good news... (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 5 months ago | (#46841473)

That's fair. Point taken.

so when is a stem cell pill coming? (-1, Flamebait)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#46840601)

and will insurance and/or obamacare cover it?

Re: so when is a stem cell pill coming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840655)

Soonish and no. Millionaires will live forever, due to economic constraints at first but quickly by design. The world will become too crowded otherwise.

"Millionaires" - heh (2)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 5 months ago | (#46840747)

>> Millionaires will live forever

Not sure you've been keeping up with the cost of living, but you pretty much have to have a million dollars in the bank to even think about retiring these days. ($1M divided by 20 - a common rule of thumb for maintaining a nest egg in retirement - is just $50K/yr.)

Re:"Millionaires" - heh (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 5 months ago | (#46840919)

>> Millionaires will live forever

Not sure you've been keeping up with the cost of living, but you pretty much have to have a million dollars in the bank to even think about retiring these days. ($1M divided by 20 - a common rule of thumb for maintaining a nest egg in retirement - is just $50K/yr.)

Actually, because that million is earning interest while you are drawing down on it, even at 5%API, you should be able to draw around $80K/yr for 20 years.

Re:"Millionaires" - heh (1, Insightful)

danbert8 (1024253) | about 5 months ago | (#46841057)

Where they hell are you getting 5%API right now in a retirement disbursing account? At retirement you are looking at money markets for most of your assets and you'll be lucky to get 2%. A million isn't enough to retire on for most people anymore. Millionaires aren't the 1%, they are the majority of the middle class.

Re:"Millionaires" - heh (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 5 months ago | (#46841137)

Where they hell are you getting 5%API right now in a retirement disbursing account? At retirement you are looking at money markets for most of your assets and you'll be lucky to get 2%. A million isn't enough to retire on for most people anymore. Millionaires aren't the 1%, they are the majority of the middle class.

If you are retired with a million dollars in your retirement account, one would hope it isn't sitting in a money market. Even AAA+ corporate, munis and treasuries will get you around 4% today and are considered safe. In addition, you would keep some of your funds in the stock market, maybe 20%. 5% would probably be low.

Re:"Millionaires" - heh (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 5 months ago | (#46841317)

Wait. Millionaires are the middle class now? *Looks at bank account which is FAR from $1 million* I guess I can't afford to be in the middle class anymore.

Re:"Millionaires" - heh (3, Informative)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 5 months ago | (#46841093)

>> Actually, because that million is earning interest while you are drawing down on it, even at 5%API, you should be able to draw around $80K/yr for 20 years

Most advisors recommend calculating return at 4% (not that you can get that today in CDs)...and trying to avoid completely eroding the principal in twenty years. By the time you get through that math, you end up with the popular "rule-of-twenty". E.g.,
http://www.getrichslowly.org/b... [getrichslowly.org]
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/2... [cnn.com]

Re:"Millionaires" - heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46841511)

>> Millionaires will live forever

Not sure you've been keeping up with the cost of living, but you pretty much have to have a million dollars in the bank to even think about retiring these days. ($1M divided by 20 - a common rule of thumb for maintaining a nest egg in retirement - is just $50K/yr.)

The woord "millionaire" means "absurdly wealthy person" in vernacular. It hasn't meant "person with a net worth exceeding 1 million dollars" for a very ling time due to inflation.

Not an upper limit (5, Informative)

Ambassador Kosh (18352) | about 5 months ago | (#46840625)

If you live long enough most of your cells end up dieing or critically damaged by the formation of inclusion bodies caused from misfolded proteins. As far as we can tell the cells are otherwise fine they are just slowly accumulating that damage over time. This is also what alzheimer's is. The problem is that misfolded proteins are kind of contagious to other proteins in the cell and that is what leads to the inclusion bodies.

We are making progress though on being able to clean out the inclusion bodies. Your cells do have the ability to take them apart but somehow they end up not doing it. Give us some time though and we will fix this problem also and clean out these inclusion bodies in all of your cells and then your cells will work much better.

The other issue we need to fix is activating telomerase to extend our telomeres. The basic issue is that natural selection does not really select for anything after reproductive age so humans are filled with a bunch of small defects and we are getting better at repairing the damage. I really look forward to what can be done with CRISPR-CAS9 to repair DNA damage and replaced damaged genes.

Oh, so somebody's an expert? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840709)

Look, if you know what you're talking about, I'm not sure you fit in here....

Re:Oh, so somebody's an expert? (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 months ago | (#46841385)

He's just here as a Vorlon observer, being a smart ass is part of the job but he needs to work on being more cryptic. Oh and if we actually discover the formula for immortality, duck before the fireworks start.

Re:Not an upper limit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840715)

The basic issue is that natural selection does not really select for anything after reproductive age so humans are filled with a bunch of small defects and we are getting better at repairing the damage

One solution would also be to stop people reproducing until after a certain age. That would mean we'd select for people to a) reach that age and b) still be able to reproduce at that age, and to a lesser degree c) be around for long enough to raise those children. Our society is already moving itself in that direction since for various reasons the average age people have kids is now over a decade later than a century ago.

Re:Not an upper limit (4, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 5 months ago | (#46840743)

One solution would also be to stop people reproducing until after a certain age.

I look forward to the movie based on this premise, Logan's Booty Run.

Re:Not an upper limit (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46840847)

People dumb enough to be duped into believing some kind of faith that tells them they're going to be "renewed" being exploded to make room for the rest... I could start to like that concept.

Give it some time and religion or similar mental defects are eliminated purely by evolution.

Re:Not an upper limit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840871)

since for various reasons the average age people have kids is now over a decade later than a century ago.

I think the words you're looking for are "Age of Consent"

Re:Not an upper limit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840765)

"As far as we can tell [...]"

"We" being the Vorlons?

Re:Not an upper limit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840801)

I attended a talk on CRISPR-CAS9 just the other week. Assuming that technology pans out (in a way that shRNAs did not), it will be amazing! The entire talk sounded like science fiction, except it's actually happening right now.

Re:Not an upper limit (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 months ago | (#46841561)

shRNA didn't "pan out" in the sense that it didn't immediately seem effective for therapeutic purposes. As far as research goes, it's extremely useful. In fact, I'd argue it's more useful to research than crispr can be, it's a more versatile tool. Furthermore, research into using shRNA fell out of vogue with the pharmecuticals: that doesn't mean it's dead.

Re:Not an upper limit (1)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about 5 months ago | (#46840837)

Meh, I know an easier way. Saw it on television. You find one of these pale coldish people and have them bite you.

There is a major side effect, but if you're a true /. person you'll hardly ever notice...

Re:Not an upper limit (1)

monkeyFuzz (3398671) | about 5 months ago | (#46840965)

Ever stop to consider the implications of success in the quest for immortality on a planet with finite resources, let alone the social and political consequences of control over who will drink form said fountain of youth? We are already approaching the carrying capacity [wikipedia.org] of the planet within a generation. If anything we could probably use some chlorine in the gene pool and better resource management.

Re:Not an upper limit (1)

Zorpheus (857617) | about 5 months ago | (#46841139)

There must be mechanisms that can stop all these age-related degradations. Otherwise oocytes would get older with each generation of humans.

Re:Not an upper limit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46841451)

Pretty much came to say exactly this.
Na, not really, just a less technical version.

Really though, with the possibility of culturing stem cells getting closer and closer, with perfect accuracy, injections of them could become a thing in the future.
We already know that a transfusion of younger blood can even have an impact. The impact of younger stem cells replacing the older ones could have loads of benefits. Equally it could probably also have some very bad downsides to it. (which is why stem cells aren't at even medically acceptable stages for the most part)

Then we will just have to deal with the overflow.
Hopefully by the time that becomes a problem, space mining will be fully underway and it won't be a problem at all.
Then maybe just harvest Jupiter to form a hard surface over Saturn at where gravity would be acceptable for humans, cover it with oxygen (via fusion), and we will never ever have to care about overpopulation in the rest of our solar systems life.
Fusion and space mining will solve so much for humanity. Once these 2 things are realized, everything changes.
Shame we will likely be spread over half a continent as an insects balls or something. Although if it makes you feel any better, at least we will all have sex one day. Several times! AWE!

Strange conclusion (5, Insightful)

geogob (569250) | about 5 months ago | (#46840679)

I find the conclusion that there is an absolute limit to the human life span because at some point the stem cells producing white blood cell all die out quite strange.

A few centuries ago, we could have concluded that there is an absolute limit to human life span because at some point someone can't eat anymore while he lost all his teeth. Any similar logical train of though could lead to the same conclusion.

And now, what if you find out why the cells die and manage to prevent it? Then the next thing that kills us will limit our life span, until we find out how to fix that as well. Absolute limits are difficult to set.

Re:Strange conclusion (5, Funny)

operagost (62405) | about 5 months ago | (#46840717)

I'm going to get ahead of the game and work on that "heat death of the universe" limit.

Re:Strange conclusion (1)

cayce (189143) | about 5 months ago | (#46840781)

After that you just become Galactus.

Re:Strange conclusion (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840897)

turn the thermostat down and wear socks to bed duh.

Re:Strange conclusion (2)

Qzukk (229616) | about 5 months ago | (#46840911)

Multivac is on it.

Re:Strange conclusion (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 5 months ago | (#46841125)

I hope it has sufficient data for a meaningful answer!

Re:Strange conclusion (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840767)

You'll also note that TFA doesn't imply this at all, it's the submitter's own work. Far from talking about absolute limits, TFA says:

Tantalisingly, Holstege says the results raise the possibility of rejuvenating ageing bodies with injections of stem cells saved from birth or early life.

Re:Strange conclusion (1)

kumanopuusan (698669) | about 5 months ago | (#46841343)

I like your argument and agree with your conclusions, but dentures are millennia old at least. http://www.sciencemuseum.org.u... [sciencemuseum.org.uk]

Re:Strange conclusion (1)

pariah99 (1899388) | about 5 months ago | (#46841387)

I think that we can all agree that, by your logic, we should limit our speculation for human life span down to, say, the eventual heat death of the universe. That should narrow our expectations down quite a bit.

The conclusion is valid (1)

aepervius (535155) | about 5 months ago | (#46841413)

Even a few century ago you could live without teeth so your analogy isn't even good. I have no idea where you got that. I never heard also anybody pretending that. But ever tried to live without any blood white cell whatsoever ? You can't. The environment fungi, bacteria, virus, and even your own bacteria will kill you. Quickly. in short order. Why do you think "bubble baby" need to be utterly separated from their environment baring grafts ? Why do you think people with AIDS dies ? That's not the HIV which kill them but the opportunistic infection which do them in without immune system.

Now the argument is, can we completely remove that problem ? If we cannot then the lifespan of a human is limited, even if we can extend it by slowing that problem down. At this point in time, with the technology we have and the biology as we know it, the conclusion is valid.

Re:Strange conclusion (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 months ago | (#46841581)

A limit need not be absolutely unbreakable to be a limit like the speed of light in a vacuum. With your example, losing one's teeth WAS a limit on lifespan. It's no longer a limit though because we navigated past it. TFA is saying one of the next limits may be running out of stem cells. No one is saying you can't possibly replenish stem cells.

People don't need to live forever (-1, Troll)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 5 months ago | (#46840685)

Now that corporations are people, we should all just live on as corporations - exempt from both legal constraints and the limits of our human bodies.

Re:People don't need to live forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46841131)

Please do that. I assume your incessant offtopic whining about Citizens United will finally end once you've become a corporation, so I'm all for it.

Re:People don't need to live forever (1)

aicrules (819392) | about 5 months ago | (#46841223)

I love you.

Who Wants To Live Forever (3, Funny)

IgnitusBoyone (840214) | about 5 months ago | (#46840741)

Who dares to love forever,
When love must die.

---Queen

Re:Who Wants To Live Forever (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46840873)

Me.

Next question?

Re:Who Wants To Live Forever (1)

PPH (736903) | about 5 months ago | (#46841183)

There can be ony one.

Re:Who Wants To Live Forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46841227)

There can be only one.

Re:Who Wants To Live Forever (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 5 months ago | (#46841237)

And here I thought I was the only one that liked that song.

longevity worth it? (2)

Ogive17 (691899) | about 5 months ago | (#46840787)

I don't know about how anyone else feels but I do not necessarily want long life unless I can maintain my youthfulness. I'm 34 now and still stay active but obviously my body is already on the decline (comparing myself to myself at age 24). I do not expect to stay in peak condition when I'm age 80.. but I also don't want to live 40 more years if I have to rely on someone else to do standard tasks

Re:longevity worth it? (1)

Xoltri (1052470) | about 5 months ago | (#46840985)

You know, it is possible to be in better shape at 34 than you were at 24...

Re:longevity worth it? (2)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#46841077)

Correct. At 47, I'm in better shape than I was at 27. Avoid sugar and alcohol, keep carbs to a minimum, and get some exercise, and you can feel great even in your 60s. Much of our decline over time is just due to self-destructive behavior. If you're inactive and eat poorly, you're going to have a bad time.

Re:longevity worth it? (1)

aicrules (819392) | about 5 months ago | (#46841235)

Avoid ... alcohol

But then longevity isn't worth it!

Re:longevity worth it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46841325)

My parents do this. Always talking about what food to avoid, what they can and can't eat, and having to plan their food down to the minute lest my mother faint due to starving herself (it's happened a few times). They're living quite long lives. One day I took a timer and figured out they spend 4 hours a day worrying about food. Since they're only conscious 16 hours a day, that's 25% of their life spent DEDICATED just to worrying about what they'll eat.

Based on what they tell my fat ass, that I'll die at 60, I'm ahead of the game, because this comment is the only worry about food I have today--I have more free time than them dedicated to doing the things I love, and the best part of it is that it's during the prime of my life.

I'll probably lose some weight in the future, but fuck me if I'm going to try to eke out another 5 years of life by spending 20 years worrying about what I stuff in my craw.

Re:longevity worth it? (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | about 5 months ago | (#46841083)

You totally missed the point. Sure, medicine can extend my life, advances have been doing that for centuries.

Just because medicine can keep my body alive an additional 20 years does not mean I would welcome that if my mind is gone or if my joints are all shot or if I have to rely on a mountain of daily pills or therapy to get going. I look at it as a Quality vs Quantity of life.

Of course I want to live a long time and experience many things. I will do what I can to extend this to the point where I can do it independently.

Re:longevity worth it? (2)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 5 months ago | (#46841253)

Today is my 32nd birthday and I'm in better shape than at any other point in my life.

That's more an indication of how out of shape I was in my earlier life than anything else though.

Re:longevity worth it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46841011)

Give it 10 more years. You'll see your perspective shift away from "I don't want to live if..." to "I am doing every single health increasing activity possible, and I fear it's not enough". Having more and more people you know getting diagnosed with cancer or dying off, seemingly randomly will assist in that sift quote a bit,
Or less dramatic things like your skin tissue starting to thin ever so slightly, and subtlety longer recovery times when you get sick or injured. No one else will really notice, but you will. /Why yes, I'm 44 :)

Re:longevity worth it? (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | about 5 months ago | (#46841127)

It's not a question of giving up and wanting to curl up in the corner to die. If I can't sustain a reasonable quality of life in those "extra" years aided by modern medicine, I don't think it would be something I would want to do. Living to 100 but having to spend the last 10 years being tended to by a live-in nurse.. I don't see that as worth it. Once I lose my ability to be independent I do not want to artifically extend my life.

Re:longevity worth it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46841311)

Say you die when you're 80 and 2 years later they invent a pill that restores your youthfulness, and can prolong it indefinitely. Death is, for all intents and purposes, irreversible. Aging might not be. That chance is enough to make me want to stay alive as long as I possibly can, no matter what condition I'm in.

Hirohiko Araki (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46840839)

They're getting their blood from the wrong source. Hirohiko Araki, as all of the fans of his autobiography (Jojo's Bizarre Adventure) would know, is an immortal vampire who ages backwards. He'd be a much better source of study.

Very Old News: Genesis 6:3 (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46841331)

Genesis 6:3 says in the New Living Translation:

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years."

News? (1)

steeleyeball (1890884) | about 5 months ago | (#46841377)

How is the failure of the immune system in old age news. Hasn't it been obvious for millenia.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?