the rich will live forever while the poor will have to constantly spend resources to raise and educate their children before they die of old age
If it could somehow be affordable and available to a huge number of people the impact would be different. Things like environmental issues would bother people more when they might actually live to experience the impact of their actions today.
Other urls found in this thread:
mobile.the-scientist.com
twitter.com
I think its unlikely that the rich will try to turn it into an exclusive thing because that would cause some serious actual class wars. The population will continue to ride while the deathrate will plummet, giving us a reason to finally go colonize and terraform other planets in our system for lack of room.
>The population will continue to ride while the deathrate will plummet
I doubt it. We will just have other health problems (heart disease, cancer, alzheimer's, various degenerative diseases, etc)
>stops cells from aging
DOHOHOHOHOHO
Minor microbiology enthusiast here - I am not versed in the subject beyond a basic high-school level, but if your statement is that the cells themselves are stopped from aging instead of the multicellular organism that the cells make up, then all that sounds like is a great way to give the poor sods who believe this will turn them into elves cancer.
Seriously. I'm not being facetious or memeing or anything like that. Cancer is caused by the aging processes of cells completely ceasing to function, which leads to cellular mitosis without the gradual degradation that aging provides, which leads to the cells not slowly breaking down and leaving a microscopic pseudo-corpse that's easy for the body's systems to deal with and divvy up among the cells that need spare nutrients (the process has a name that I've long forgotten, starts with the letter a), but it keeps trying to sustain its existence longer than it's physically capable of doing so, which leads to a sudden and catastrophic breakdown of the cell as a whole, resulting in it breaking into pieces with great force, which damages neighbouring cells and generally causes a horrible cellular mess.
tl;dr That's gonna give people some bad tumours.
Yeah, and that one guy definitely made a lightspeed engine. I'll believe it when I see it.
If you could live forever but needed monthly screenings and frequent operations to remove tumors before they grew large, would you do it?
>Cancer is caused by the aging processes of cells completely ceasing to function, which leads to cellular mitosis without the gradual degradation that aging provides, which leads to the cells not slowly breaking down and leaving a microscopic pseudo-corpse that's easy for the body's systems to deal with and divvy up among the cells that need spare nutrients (the process has a name that I've long forgotten, starts with the letter a)
Actual molecular biologist here, it is called apoptosis. And what you've said is totally correct. Pushing DNA repair would certainly propagate the survival of cancerous cells. If a cell's DNA is damaged, the cell notices and starts getting "stressed out". This kicks of two cellular programs: a program to repair its DNA ... and a program to commit cellular suicide. The cell will try to repair the damage before the suicide program reaches the point of no return and goes into apoptosis. Usually, when the DNA damage is too much to fully repair, this program will kill the cell. It is a rather stupid idea to mess with such a fine-tuned system.
>How do you think the advent of cheap anti-aging treatment will affect our world?
Legal loli is a-go?
>cell is given long reign
>cell reigns good = good thing
>cell reigns bad = bad thing
we would need an improved system for dealing with bad cells as soon as possible
couldn't we look into catfish since I seem to remember they already had naturally developed an anti age process?
before that is achieved, I think the treatment would be limited to cells that either aren't able to create a lineage too big and the ones that have a limited but crucial role.
I'm thinking about nervous cells and germ cells in particular, but even then I don't know how big the protein is and I have fears it could end up getting in the way of other processes.
the practical solution would be to see if it's possible to just do periodical "baths" to restore the age of cells to a healthy state and expect the body to keep aging from that point until the next bath instead of keeping the protein around all the time.
maybe it could be used only when cultivating meat in cultures
I don't even know if what I said makes sense with what's actually been found.
These statements are based on the presumption that the OP accurately represented the findings of the study, and/or the news article that he linked, and that the news article accurately represented the findings, and in this case I can tell you that at the least he did not, to the first.
The tl;dr of the study is that this "NMN" aids in mitigating damage to the DNA through aging, but that could mean multiple different things, and news outlets tend not to be specific.
If it's a case of it keeping existing cells alive longer, then yes, that could be a problem. If it's a compound that's helping the cells correct or counteract damage created over the course of a *human* lifespan and what is created from the repeated process of mitosis, but doesn't interfere in it directly, that could be something else entirely.
Furthermore the specifics of the experiments probably aren't the focus of what we should be talking about, but rather the societal implications of publicly-available, widespread lifespan extenders for humanity- possibly ones that extend it indefinitely.
Isnt there a legitimate sample of cancer cells from someone who died in the 20s or something that is somehow still alive?
How do jellyfish in inhospitable food low environments regress to a younger age to preserve their lives?
That would be what IIRC is called the HeLA line, which has been cultured subcultured and maintained as a cell line for a long time and is the general baseline for these sorts of mammalian cell lines.
by playing video games, collecting trading cards and watching animes.
If someone made a functioning lightspeed engine you'd never see it.
Why not ? It is nice to go wherever in the solar city, but liftoff/touchdown ist still so energy intensive, that bringing things out there to earth is not economic.
You could mine asteroids bring them and drop the resources i guess, but even that is unbelievably difficult sso that anything on earth is eassier to access.
So a lightsspeed engine would be neat for exploring our system and sending probes to other near systems. But going there would take years und we cannot deal with the radiation on a trip to mars yet. And that takes six months.
kek
>Why not ?
What do you need in order to see things?
>Veeky Forums - Thaumaturgic Genetics
...
Best post today.
Eyes?
>That's gonna give people some bad tumours
Praise Nurgle's gift
Light. You can't see an FTL ship because light it emits would reach you slower than the ship.
