Scientists can reverse aging in mice.

[martin-w 3,252]

1 hour ago, OzWhitey said:

Did this Sinclair guy actually manage to make immortal mice that will live forever and maybe get the chance to travel to Alpha Centauri on mouse spaceships?

Nope. What he actually did was get some poor, harmless mice and then CRUSH THEIR OPTIC NERVES. And then played with their epigenetics to show that he could heal their optic nerves FROM THE INJURY THAT HE CAUSED a tiny little bit quicker.

 

This Sinclair guy is actually world renowned for his research into aging. He's not just "some guy". But yes, what they do to animals in order to learn this stuff is utterly abhorrent. It engenders quite an emotive debate of course in terms of the morality of such a thing. 

 

Quote

Amazingly, damaged neurons in the eyes of mice injected with the three cells rejuvenated, even growing new axons, or projections from the eye into the brain

 

His team may have damaged them, but what's relevant is that they did heal and rejuvenate. And since then he has rejuvenated muscles and brains. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by martin-w

[OzWhitey 3,353]

7 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

This Sinclair guy is actually world renowned for his research into aging. He's not just "some guy". But yes, what they do to animals in order to learn this stuff is utterly abhorrent. It engenders quite an emotive debate of course in terms of the morality of such a thing. 

The more important point is that they didn’t make mice immortal or anything like that, despite what you might read on Avsim.

The claims of CNN are not remotely supported by the paper, if you actually take the time to read it.

Sinclair not just “some guy”? Meh, he sounds like he’s good at marketing. I’m sure he knows a bit of epigenetics. I likely know as much as him about immortality, I just don’t go around attacking harmless mice these days, and then exaggerating my exploits for the credulous news reporters! 🙂

Edited June 6, 2022 by OzWhitey

[OzWhitey 3,353]

11 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

His team may have damaged them, but what's relevant is that they did heal and rejuvenate. And since then he has rejuvenated muscles and brains. 

There is a rather large gulf between potentiating axonal regeneration through epigenetic manipulation and achieving immortality for mice or humans.

[martin-w 3,252]

1 minute ago, OzWhitey said:

The more important point is that they didn’t make mice immortal or anything like that, despite what you might read on Avsim

 

Well no, I realised that, I've been following his work for a while. I'm familiar with his work.

 

2 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

The claims of CNN are not remotely supported by the paper, if you actually take the time to read it.

 

I didn't say they were. 🙄 

 

3 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Meh, he sounds like he’s good at marketing. I’m sure he knows a bit of epigenetics.

 

A bit? 😁 Look, I'm not fond of what these people do to animals either, but I try not to let it bias me in terms of the capabilities, education and achievements of the scientists concerned.

 

Quote

I likely know as much as him about immortality

 

Do you have a PhD then too? To be honest, after that last comment I can see I'm, not going to achieve anything by debating this with you. 

[dmwalker 611]

It's not true immortality, is it? You have to periodically reset your cells otherwise you will live a normal lifespan from that point and die. That's good because if people become truly and irreversibly immortal and then regret their choice, I think many of them would choose suicide.

In any case, developing a way to  achieve immortality is like opening Pandora's Box. If the procedure is affordable enough that most of the world's population take advantage of it, the population will grow exponentially. If it's affordable for only the wealthiest, there will be conflict between the haves and the have nots who want it. 

[martin-w 3,252]

11 hours ago, dmwalker said:

It's not true immortality, is it? You have to periodically reset your cells otherwise you will live a normal lifespan from that point and die. That's good because if people become truly and irreversibly immortal and then regret their choice, I think many of them would choose suicide.

 

In the future, resetting cells may not be required. One treatment and aging switched off. As for suicide if you regret your choice, in the future, when/if the aging process is switched off, suicide may be regarded as a personnel choice, a right to choose. 

But yes, its not immortality because you would be still susceptible to injury and death. If you wrestle with tigers (if there's any left) you would still find yourself shredded by claws. 😾

[martin-w 3,252]

11 hours ago, dmwalker said:

In any case, developing a way to  achieve immortality is like opening Pandora's Box. If the procedure is affordable enough that most of the world's population take advantage of it, the population will grow exponentially. If it's affordable for only the wealthiest, there will be conflict between the haves and the have nots who want it. 

 

Don't worry... by then we will have access to numerous colonies in the solar system and perhaps beyond. Elon will have triumphed. 😀 A good point though, perhaps such a scenario would necessitate population control? 🤔 Clearly we couldn't keep on multiplying with no reduction in the population. Another good advertisement for space exploration and colonisation. 👍🚀

[GaryK 201]

14 hours ago, dmwalker said:

It's not true immortality, is it? You have to periodically reset your cells otherwise you will live a normal lifespan from that point and die. That's good because if people become truly and irreversibly immortal and then regret their choice, I think many of them would choose suicide.

In any case, developing a way to  achieve immortality is like opening Pandora's Box. If the procedure is affordable enough that most of the world's population take advantage of it, the population will grow exponentially. If it's affordable for only the wealthiest, there will be conflict between the haves and the have nots who want it. 

Yes, it would cause lots of problems.

The world would fill up with old minds that would probably stagnate as evolution ground to a halt......Creativity typically comes from young minds. Creativity of ideas,  arts and solutions.

Edited June 7, 2022 by GaryK

[martin-w 3,252]

46 minutes ago, GaryK said:

The world would fill up with old minds that would probably stagnate as evolution ground to a halt......Creativity typically comes from young minds. Creativity of ideas,  arts and solutions.

 

No way Gary. 😀 Creativity tends to decline with age but if aging is combated and switched off then the deterioration in cerebral capacity including creativity is preserved.

[birdguy 3,946]

46 minutes ago, GaryK said:

Creativity typically comes from young minds

I'll vouch for that.  I've found that as I moved on into my dotage my learning curve has flattened.  While I can remember how to do things I already know how to do learning new things becomes more difficult.  That's why I have a problem with new technology.  Why I only use my iPhone as a telephone.

Noel

[martin-w 3,252]

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

I'll vouch for that.  I've found that as I moved on into my dotage my learning curve has flattened.  While I can remember how to do things I already know how to do learning new things becomes more difficult.  That's why I have a problem with new technology.  Why I only use my iPhone as a telephone.

Noel

 

Creativity isn't the same as learning though. We can learn stuff and commit to memory without requiring creativity. Personally, I've found some of your convoluted arguments with me very creative. 👍😀

[GaryK 201]

It could be argued that creativity comes from not knowing. Not being constrained by norms, tradition, dogma and cynicism......maybe it comes from a lack of experience and learning.

Loss of creativity may not be a physiological thing.

I'm thinking that a fear of death gives us things that we don't realise we have or maybe take for granted. Things that indirectly help keep us alive for three score and ten if we are lucky.

Edited June 7, 2022 by GaryK

[dmwalker 611]

While the testing of safety and effectiveness of the treatment in mice, with a lifespan of 2-3 years, would be relatively straightforward, what would be required to demonstrate the same in humans, with a lifespan of 70-80 years? If it is proposed to be a repeating treatment, how many life cycles would have to be evaluated?

Also, I presume any such reverse ageing treatment would not restore a woman's fertility.

[birdguy 3,946]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

Creativity isn't the same as learning though.

You're right Martin.  Learning means thinking within a box.  Creativity is thinking outside the box.

As for convoluted arguments with you when I was in the debating club in high-school (which is another story) I sometimes drove my opponents nuts.

Noel 

[OzWhitey 3,353]

21 hours ago, martin-w said:

Do you have a PhD then too? To be honest, after that last comment I can see I'm, not going to achieve anything by debating this with you. 

I wasn't aware we were having a debate. I was merely providing a summary of the research article in question and pointing out that it failed to support the overblown claims of both CNN, Dr Sinclair and the OP of this thread.

You perhaps failed to notice that I actually understood the Nature article, whilst also alluding to the fact that I've done research in the past using animal models? 

Anyway, if YOU have a PhD I'm happy to debate you (as you say), if not then I'm really just providing you and/or others with a simplified explanation.

Cheers!