Scientists probe anti-ageing gene

[UM-Bot]

Scientists in the United States have discovered a gene that can keep mice alive for 30% longer than normal. They say the gene has a key role to play in many of the processes related to ageing. Because humans have a very similar version of the gene, the hope is that it will show a way to improve our declining years.

The gene studied in the new research is called Klotho, named after a minor Greek goddess who spins life's thread. The gene certainly seems to do that.

View: Full Article | Source: BBC News

[smallpackage]

Our population is growing rapidly as it is, But now they want to keep us alive longer? All about the money...wow.

[Baku]

Our population is growing rapidly as it is, But now they want to keep us alive longer? All about the money...wow.

812649[/snapback]

I agree the whole world is gonna be overpopulated within months with this. I think 70 years is more then enough for mankind

[whoa182]

Im gonna double post here, but it's necessary because of this misinformation.

Overpopulation?

How would longer lives affect population?

Well at the moment the UN population Division expects the popluations of japan, italy, germany and spain to decrease over the next fifty years, despite the fact that japan has the highest life expectancy of any large country, and the western europe nations are not far behind.

Life Extension is something that would only make a small impact on population. Jay Olshansky has shown that extending human life would have an incremental rather than exponential growth effect on population.

He says that if we achieved immortality TODAY the growth in population would be less than what we experienced in the post world war 2 baby boom. If everyone were made completely immortal today and taking into account declining birth rates, global population would hit about 13 billion in 2100 rather than 10 billion if we didnt have immortality.

The fact is by 2011 we are going to see a crisis as the majority of the population will be over 65. It is extremely important to improve health by slowing down age related decline. I've spoken to jay and he says the worst thing we can do now is not increase healthy life span.

Heres a few quotes from jay olshansky

"Once you understand the demographics of what's going on across the globe in terms of human aging, you realize that aging has not even hit yet," he says. We know it's going to hit by the year 2011 in most developed countries. And then we are going to see an explosion in people over the age of 65 that we have never seen before.

"I would suggest that we absolutely must go after aging itself," says Olshansky.

"We are pushing many, many more people out into extreme older reaches of the life span, where the risks of frailty and disability are extraordinarily high and growing. In my view, ignoring this challenge is not an option."

He does the demographics for the government and he understands the problem we have. We are keeping frail people alive so long that its going to cost us a hell of a lot of money. If we could make these people more productive and free of disease or ill health untill the very end then this will benifit the economy.

If you have a better solution then please tell me...

Edited August 27, 2005 by whoa182

[smallpackage]

Im gonna double post here, but it's necessary because of this misinformation.

Overpopulation?

How would longer lives affect population?

Well at the moment the UN population Division expects the popluations of japan, italy, germany and spain to decrease over the next fifty years, despite the fact that japan has the highest life expectancy of any large country, and the western europe nations are not far behind.

Life Extension is something that would only make a small impact on population. Jay Olshansky has shown that extending human life would have an incremental rather than exponential growth effect on population.

He says that if we achieved immortality TODAY the growth in population would be less than what we experienced in the post world war 2 baby boom. If everyone were made completely immortal today and taking into account declining birth rates, global population would hit about 13 billion in 2100 rather than 10 billion if we didnt have immortality.

The fact is by 2011 we are going to see a crisis as the majority of the population will be over 65. It is extremely important to improve health by slowing down age related decline. I've spoken to jay and he says the worst thing we can do now is not increase healthy life span.

Heres a few quotes from jay olshansky

"Once you understand the demographics of what's going on across the globe in terms of human aging, you realize that aging has not even hit yet," he says. We know it's going to hit by the year 2011 in most developed countries. And then we are going to see an explosion in people over the age of 65 that we have never seen before.

"I would suggest that we absolutely must go after aging itself," says Olshansky.

"We are pushing many, many more people out into extreme older reaches of the life span, where the risks of frailty and disability are extraordinarily high and growing. In my view, ignoring this challenge is not an option."

He does the demographics for the government and he understands the problem we have. We are keeping frail people alive so long that its going to cost us a hell of a lot of money. If we could make these people more productive and free of disease or ill health untill the very end then this will benifit the economy.

If you have a better solution then please tell me...

812733[/snapback]

That lacks common sense.

[whoa182]

explain please?

http://apr.sph.uic.edu/faculty_profile/fac...ile.asp?i=sjayo

If you think jay is wrong then please go ahead and explain to him why

If you were to increase healthy life span you would push out diseases further out into the future. Researching ageing would be more effective and will save money than going after each disease individualy. From around the age of 30 your risk of cancer increases exponentially. Governments face a real big problem and it's not going to be solved easily. By slowing the diseases that come with ageing people could be able to contribute to society.

People are increasingly living longer, but they are living longer being frail for many years. Anti aging research could change this. I prefer to see active and happy old people than ones waiting in a chair to die for a decade.

Edited August 27, 2005 by whoa182

[whoa182]

Anyway, in relation to the article about the over expressing the klotho gene. It will be interesting to see if any drug can be developed that is safe for humans in the near future. I assume that if possible it could only probably be around 5-10 years away. I personally wouldn't take it untill it was absaloutly proven to be safe.

Currently I am doing an experimental diet called Calorie Restriction which gives just as much life extension to mice and other animals... probably humans too!. It does this by slowing metabolism, thus making energy usage more efficient. A Slower metabolism means that you get less by-products from the Mitochondria resulting in less oxidative stress which slows signs of aging. Also CR has protective effects from developing diabetes, which over expressing the klotho gene may actually increase risk of diabetes.

It looks like we may see the first real anti aging therapies on the market within 10 years. If proven safe will anyone here take it?

If you were to take this pill, you would probably have many benifits such as less risk of developing major chronic diseases and live a healthy life right up untill you die... Unless of course we reach escape velocity and we extend life span faster than we can age!.

Edited August 28, 2005 by whoa182

[~*S.T.R.*~]

Hey if this stuff works, sign me up...with the heart disease, high bloob pressure, diabeties, and memory lose that runs in my family, i would gladly try it!

[SilverRain Queen]

I remember as a kid how people in the '60's were killing themselves because they thought the world was going to over populate and mankind would die.

Well...here we are.....aside from a long life or an eternal life...there are other things to die of.....disease and WAR.

Another good world war with nukes and the population is back down again.

Am I'm sure that if we ever do find the old age gene and destory it.....you bet the laws will change for having children....could end up a crime *gasp*

It's "A Brave New World"

[~*S.T.R.*~]

Laws for having kids?!? Strange but I wouldnt doubt it!

[whoa182]

Im not convinced that there would be a law put in place to stop having kids...

Think about it, people started to use contraception without anyone forcing it on them. Now we have a problem that there will be more over 65's than younger people.

If a real anti aging therapy were to come about then the vast majority would want it, regardless of some people crying over overpopulation... and I've explained that a few posts up anyway.

and yes there is accidents, diseases, wars that will still kill people. We wouldn't be at imminent danger of overpopulation. Because our countries are pretty wealthy in the west we could manage. If there was a population of todays size in a city back 10,000, 5,000, 2,000 years ago then we would of seen POVERTY, but we have the support structure in place to deal with huge populations in our cities. Theres still plenty of space on earth too. It's about having the structure in place to deal with huge numbers, its not about how much space we have left on earth.

The space on earth isnt a problem, it's avoiding poverty. That is where a lot of people are misunderstanding the problem. But as technology advances we will be able to support more people.

Edited August 28, 2005 by whoa182