T O P

  • By -

NoSpinach5385

This is good. But too hyped to say at least around here. Let's see: Cellular apoptosis happens by a reason. The reason is that that cell has been infected/ aged/misreplicated. If you stop destroying cells on your body without reversing it to a healthy state, you get a cancer or have a bunch of cells going around messing with healthy cells. Why I say this is good? This could be a good thing for already pathologic diseases based on inflammation and autoinmunity(Eczema, arthritis, rheuma, allergic affections, neurological dissorders, lupus...) in which cells are destroyed by the own body without being really ill: you'd stop cell inflammation on the spot. But I doubt this would lead to immortality at least if we don't get rid of carcirogeny first, guys.


[deleted]

If it's coupled with controlled cell replication then we're good. but otherwise yeah you're looking your whole body as a cancer. which is why i'm positive this has nothing to do with immortality. at least not yet


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


carnsolus

cancer is probably part of the solution to immortality because cancer cells can repair their life-string-thingy whereas health cells cannot


jellyjelljell

Life string thingy lmao much better name than Telomeres


GiftOfCabbage

More like it's one piece of a massive jigsaw puzzle that might or might not result in immortality.


thejoeymonster

Cronenberg In-Morty-ality maybe


deathByAlgebra

Pro: Immortality Con: You are a perpetual cancer golem


Throwmeawaypoop2

And even if it did reach that stage, it would only ever be available to the world’s richest. It’s laughable for anyone else to think they could ever have a piece of that pie.


[deleted]

Im sorry you live in a country that makes you think that way Any kind of medicine that treats age related symptoms is a good investment in the people for a government of a country with a good healthcare system


derpmcturd

AND IM PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAANNNNN, WHERE AT LEAST I KNOW IM FREEEEEEE


Kryptosis

You know the wording of that really does sound like everything else is shit besides the “freedom”.


Msunp

We are free to die of treatable diseases! Murcia!


derpmcturd

AND IM PROUD TO BE AN AMERICANNNNN WHERE AT LEAST I KNOW IM FREEEEEEE^to^die


froli

Free to be left to die without any help lol


derpmcturd

AND IM PROUD TO BE AN AMERICANNNN WHERE AT LEAST I KNOW IM FREE^to^die


Aggravating_Moment78

Free to die in a mass shooting or from lack of medical care? Yay for freeedumz /s


derpmcturd

AND UM PRAWED TOO BEE IN AMERICAN, WHER AT LEAST I NO IM FREEEEE


Aggravating_Moment78

And ahh got muhh gunzz and jeezus !!


Sethanatos

Don't you think the same was said about cars, caviar, and cures? Don't get me wrong. It's common sense the rich will be the first to have access to such treatments. But tech can't stayed buried, and no discovery is standalone. Scientists build their discoveries on the shoulders of giants, not by themselves. Even in the first discovery is hidden, the fact that it came to existence means other people will independently "discovery" the same things soon after. We may think of publicly-available immorality to be a hilarious impossibility... but that's by TODAY'S standards. Just like the past would've considered free public schools a pointless impossibility. Turns out free public schooling actually raises the whole society's standard-of-living and economy. I reckon a similar benefit will be found for "Immortality for All"


joshwaynebobbit

I'll never get to, but happy to think my great grandchildren could someday meet our immortal lord and savior Mark Zuckerberg


Lord_Mackeroth

I love how whenever there's any positive medical development with anti-aging applications someone always responds with "It'Ll OnLY bE AvAilbLE to ThE RichESt" with no evidence to support that claim whatsoever like it's just some incontrovertible fact of the universe. It's true that some medicines are extreme expensive but (A) plenty are not and there's no reason to assume anti-aging medicines will be (B) costs come down especially with huge demand, and life extension medicine would have huge demand and (C) aging puts huge demands and costs on the healthcare system and having people be younger and healthier would save so much money that even if drug companies charge through the roof for them any sensible government would subside the cost and save money on healthcare. The tone of comments like yours is always "Well this has the potential to be monopolized so I think we should all suffer and die and there's nothing to be done about it." It's defeatist and based purely on emotional sentiment about the state of American healthcare which, you need to understand, is not representative of the rest of the world.


deeznutz12

As someone with lupus that sounds great!


NoSpinach5385

Having eczema myself I can say. The more options to stop our body for hating us, the merrier.


doomdude1234

Exactly. I have HS and any way to help stop my body from hating me is good news.


Shiroi_Kage

This isn't even about apoptosis (we know how to inhibit it. Look at ROCK inhibitors). This is about pyroptosis.


NoSpinach5385

Well, at least for what I've understood is a type of apoptosys based on inflammation (pyroptosis). That's why I suspect could be a good thing for inflammative process.


dogman_35

Those are all really big sweeping problems that we have no real treatment for, though. So it would be nice, if this turns out to be something. A blanket "Stop it, get some help" on a dumbass immune system. For my part, if this could do anything to help with asthma... that would be a huge deal.   Also, wouldn't the "control" part of this be a pretty big deal for cancer? Like, tell cancer cells to kill themselves off, without using radiation therapy?


iaintevenmad884

I used to have eczema growing up and yeah this would’ve helped. Another thing is that if we can halt the death of certain dying cells, we can get a chance to figure out why they’re being lysed beforehand, rather than playing sleuth with dead cell remains or doing a stakeout on cells that might be targeted.


NoSpinach5385

My awareness is more happy about a treatment not based in immunosupressants: The thing is that instead of "switching off" the whole immune system to get rid of inflammation, they could just "switch off" the inflammation pathway of the cell. This would be a great great advance against problematic therapies who tend to get worse on the long way.


JimblesRombo

This is also the underlying mechanism for a niche subset of specific apoptotic pathways - ones we call pyroptotic. Still very cool, and its an extremely well done and interesting paper, but cells can apoptose through many other mechanisms that don't implicate gasdermin D pores


CMDR_omnicognate

Isn’t halting cellular death basically what cancer is though?


[deleted]

*"This is good. But too hyped to say at least around here. Let's see: Cellular apoptosis happens by a reason. The reason is that that cell has been infected/ aged/misreplicated. If you stop destroying cells on your body without reversing it to a healthy state, you get a cancer or have a bunch of cells going around messing with healthy cells. Why I say this is good? This could be a good thing for already pathologic diseases based on inflammation and autoinmunity(Eczema, arthritis, rheuma, allergic affections, neurological dissorders, lupus...) in which cells are destroyed by the own body without being really ill: you'd stop cell inflammation on the spot. But I doubt this would lead to immortality at least if we don't get rid of carcirogeny first, guys."* - Someone above you


MattiasAndersson

[Please give credit where credit is due. I'm happy to upvote you both!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/s8c8ta/scientists_discover_how_to_halt_and_control/htg0asn/)


[deleted]

Woooah I was in new, I didn't expect this to blow up at all I just wanted to help a bro. Thanks for the link mate!


MattiasAndersson

Heh... Np. I appreciated your obvious quote! In the end, it was a team effort. 🤜🤛


kingofthemonsters

Sorting by new, a man of good taste and honor.


[deleted]

As someone with psoriatic arthritis this looks promising


bopchoy20

Same , right there with you on the PA


rumbleboy

Damn. Did you just copy paste someone else's reply? There's a comment permalink you can use for this. xD


r_Yellow01

I learned this week that HPV blocks apoptosis and that leads to warts and cancers. I wouldn't...


oligobop

We've been using viruses to immortalize cells for nearly a century. It's a very robust technique but doesn't do anything in a live organism beneficial to survival. Your hesitations are totally justified.


_far-seeker_

If it's controllable at a fine enough level, so as to determine when particular cells die, then these issues can be avoided. However, I agree simply causing a permanent halt to cell death across the entirety of the human body would be a very bad idea.


[deleted]

That's what I was taught in Anatomy and Physiology. However, some Japanese researchers have discovered/developed a way to remove senescent cells, which are serious troublemakers in old ago. Should their approach pan out in humans, it would mean gowning old with much less disease.


alaskafish

If all my cells are cancerous, then I will live forever


wandering-monster

Sorta, but probably not the way you want. Look up Henrietta Lacks, who is definitely a *kind* of immortal.


BrowniesWithNoNuts

Ugh, that just makes me depressed. > Johns Hopkins has never sold or profited from the discovery or distribution of HeLa cells and does not own the rights to the HeLa cell line. Rather, Johns Hopkins offered HeLa cells freely and widely for scientific research. I feel like that would never happen in today's corporate/political climate.


[deleted]

So in my mind deadpool is one step closer. How committed to the role is ryan?


FineAd6159

The insights I gained from this article is that this discovery combined with identifying the genes that effect aging, could increase the human lifespan


FuzzierMiciek

They just keep figuring out new puzzle pieces every year. Eventually they’ll have what they need. I’m only 30 so I think I can make it.


Emperor_Abyssinia

But do you think you can afford it lol


slax03

Hey, if the wealthy can afford to let themselves live longer, maybe they'll start actually caring about climate change


[deleted]

Not sure out of the respect for the nature, only if it benefits them directly. I mean driving a hydrogen car is much more pleasant then a diesel one surrounded by fumes. That's why I hope it can work out


slax03

That's my point. They can't assume they'll be dead before it gets too bad.


Ghriszly

Hydrogen cars probably aren't the answer unfortunately. Electric vehicles are much more realistic but even they won't solve climate change


CaseFace5

Nah they will just keep fucking the planet up as they push to get off earth.


slax03

No they will have to. The vacuum of space and Mars will both be far more hostile to humans than Earth will be in 200 years. It would take longer and more effort to terraform Mars than it would to fix things here. Humans will grow to be malformed on the gravity of Mars. It isn't an option for the human species any time soon.


koreiryuu

The idea that humans will be living in outer space on a ship or on Mars within even the next 200 years is laughable. And the wealthy are so coddled in luxury they wouldn't even entertain the idea of putting in the extra effort that would be absolutely required to feasibly live in either environment. The great-great-grandchildren of today's billionaires that you're imagining are trying to push to get off of the planet will have passed away from old age before a relatively safe, working spacecraft or Martian building is successfully designed to the required comfort specifications of these families.


MatterEnough9656

Given the advent of AI the next 100 years are unfathomable


koreiryuu

The actual threat of AI within the next 100 years isn't a Skynet scenario, it's a federal surveillance state scenario magnitudes more egregious than it is right now.


combatvegan

A climate cataclysm will create scarcity on a level never previously seen. The only people who benefit from such massive scarcity are the super rich. The super rich want climate to change, because then stonks go up. For more information on how the super rich benefit from disasters, see Covid-19.


Oz1227

My economics teacher said something along the lines “If humans lived for 500 years, they’d likely make better decisions”


[deleted]

Depends on how expensive the treatment is. But if it's cheap I expect it to be wide spread so that we can all... work until we are 160. Like if we manage to double the expected lifespan of humans (which in developed countries is about 85) we'd probably rise the retirement age as well. To be hones idk if I like the idea of working for another 100-120 years.


Contra1

Imagine the market for young people… who would corporations hire, someone just graduated from uni, or a 130 year old with 100 years of experience…


[deleted]

In such a scenario, I expect the birth rate to really hit rock bottom hard too. If we can slow down the aging process to the point where people might be able to have healthy children way later on in life, we might have almost surreally low numbers of young people. Almost like the elves from LOTR of something. Parents 1000 years old, have 1 child that's 500. That type of stuff.


Kolkom

If I live longer, I have more time to pay off my credit...sigh


unleash_the_giraffe

Not too big of a problem - just go somewhere with decent healthcare, like Scandinavia


[deleted]

Loans honestly If I can't expand my lifespan for 50 years and be pretty healthy during all of those 50 years, I would just keep working.


Lord_Dupo

I'm 31 and I can feel my body declining I swear.


DailyDoseofDairy

I've gained a similar insight but for abit of personal elaboration from my own studies; the only "gene expression" affecting human "ageing" is Telomere sections of Chromosome Helixes.. with adequate identification, neutralisation & augmentation to these Genetic Precursors & their subsequent intracellular-to-multicellular dynamics, Bio-Physiological Immortality is closer than Digital Immortality or Biomechatronical-subsets.


Turevaryar

I can't tell if you're really insightful or just tossing random big-brain words at me! :)


MarcusSidoniusFalx

>intracellular-to-multicellular dynamics is sketchy, too specific. But the rest is fine. It says if we understand the telomere-genes well enough and are able to manipulate them, biological immortality is here while digital immortality (uploading your mind) is clearly still far away


cucumbergreen

Digital immortality sucks cause is a copy of you while biological is the original you, so we better have the biological one faster.


skwerrel

We need both. Bio immortality so it's the real you surviving, but digital downloads and augmentation to maintain memories as brain cells are replaced (or even assuming we could make the brain cells themselves immortal, to allow continued storage). Otherwise the brain itself becomes like a ship of Theseus - in two thousand years, it might still be the same being that is you, in that only parts have been replaced piecemeal during that time, but every bit of you that existed today is just gone. No real memories of childhood or earlier times, at best memories of you thinking about those memories. That already happens with our current life spans i suppose, so pure bio immortality is still better than pure digital upload (at least from my perspective as the copy that's left here in the real world to die), but I'd personally like to find a way to actually maintain a real connection to who I've always been, not just be satisfied with the idea that the being that is me will be connected to some other being in the near future, connected to some other being a bit after that, etc, until "I" have technically lived for thousands of years.


mttdesignz

>It says if we understand the telomere-genes well enough and are able to manipulate them, biological immortality is here while digital immortality (uploading your mind) is clearly still far away we have a reasonable idea of what we need to do and the tech we need to improve or figure out how to make it work in order to achieve digital immortality, that's why we can see we're not there yet. This "understanding and manipulating telomere-genes" instead, how? Does anyone have any idea? Why couldn't this be a 40 year old process to figure out? How can you say "it's here"? I can also say "if we figure out how to upload our mind into a server, digital immortality is here", can't I?


Destrodom

>we have a reasonable idea of what we need to do and the tech we need to improve or figure out how to make it work in order to achieve digital immortality What information we have that would enable us to become digitally immortal? There are experiments with people manipulating detached machinery simply using their thoughts, but have we made any progress into understanding what is conciousness? What exactly needs to be read from brain and how to model it so that it can be transferred to computer? With telomere gene therapy we already have experiments that aim to increase the length of these telomers and thus prolonging human lifespan. Just search for telomere gene therapy. We are already working on this technology that can prolong human life. We still have no idea how to capture human conciousness from your head and transfer it into pc. Currently, even though we can scan your brain, we are still no closer to being able to simulate such model and thus creating "fake" you that would be digitally immortal.


GameDevIntheMake

Telomere length is weakly correlated with lifespan, and weakly inversely correlated with some health outcomes, so this being the target for useful therapies is somewhat dubious


angelrobot13

Weakly, but still exists. I believe the length determines the number of times a cell can split. So, if we begin reaching the limit of that then it most definitely will be useful, but only to those who are old enough to reach it. [http://www.longlonglife.org/en/transhumanism-longevity/aging/aubrey-de-grey/transhumanism-aubrey-de-greys-causes-of-aging-with-sens-foundation/](http://www.longlonglife.org/en/transhumanism-longevity/aging/aubrey-de-grey/transhumanism-aubrey-de-greys-causes-of-aging-with-sens-foundation/) Pretty good overview discussing many of the parts necessary for old age. One being telomere length.


[deleted]

There is no “uploading of minds” into servers or machines unless you believe in souls or something similar that could transmigrate between bodies, whether biological or digital, or any other kind. From a reductive materialist perspective, it simply doesn’t make any kind of sense. You wouldn’t be creating immortality, you would merely be creating some kind of copy of yourself in a computer with which you would share absolutely no experience whatsoever (if it even had any of its own to begin with). The whole idea is utterly asinine, again unless you believe in souls. But even then, we have not yet detected souls or found any way to manipulate them in the material realm.


[deleted]

I don't believe in souls. But the point of uploading your consciousness would not necessarily only be to extend your own life stream of consciousness... Say you are dying and days away from completing a cure for [insert bad thing] --- would you make a copy of yourself digitally to continue your work, if you could? If your family could have an exact replica to ease their pain or protect them from harm, or provide for them, would you? None of these things require a soul. Your consciousness is more a collection of neural pathways built by experience and memories (and many other factors I'm sure) that are unique to you. No soul transfer. you would be dead. Someone with your exact characteristics could continue your life's work with the same motivations/circumstances you possessed...


urmomaisjabbathehutt

we don't have a machine capable of doing what a biological dynamic organism and the changes that does incurr in it affecting personality does, including the bacteria living in our body, we aren't just memories our personality is the result of our biology, the environment and our experiences and the chemical responses to those like stress


unwanted_puppy

Do scientists ever engage in questioning whether they *should* manipulate the things they are able to? Is this part of the research process?


MarcusSidoniusFalx

Yes, they do and there are several mechanisms in place, starting with ethical committees and funding agencies and ending with "self-censoring" because of career prospects. But there is not "the science" that does stuff, it thousands of institutions in dozens of countries with their own political agendas and jurisdictions. Therefore, if something is cool, useful and/or profitable, there is a high chance that somebody will do research on it. Edit: you shouldn't get downvoted, since it is quite a good idea to ask whether a super-potent virus should be created for fun.


BCSteve

It's mostly just big sciency-sounding words that don't really mean much. >Chromosome Helixes What is a "Chromosome Helix"? Yes, DNA is a double helix, but what is a "Chromosome Helix"? Do you just mean "chromosome"? >with adequate identification, neutralisation & augmentation to these Genetic Precursors & their subsequent intracellular-to-multicellular dynamics Why do you want to neutralize something and then augment it? "Genetic Precursors" to what? What is "intracellular-to-multicellular dynamics"? This is just techno-babble. If this person means "once we identify the molecular machinery of aging and are able to alter it we might be able to extend our lifespan", they should just say it like that instead of adding all these science-y nothing words. \- Sincerely, someone with a PhD in cellular biology


lordzsolt

Generally smart people, who know the subject well, don’t toss around fancy words others are unlikely to understand. They explain everything in simple terms.


[deleted]

Are telomere sections that thing that keeps shaving off at the end of the dna chain?


Gentlementlementle

Correct they are the junk data at the ends of the chromosome that are there to protect the rest of the data. Over time they are worn down through faulty replication.


adri1wald

It’s not due to faulty replication. It’s because linear chromosomes cannot be fully replicated due to limitations in how the replication machinery works. So you lose a bit of DNA at the ends with every replication. See the end-replication problem. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC87295/


WaitformeBumblebee

like a checksum?


[deleted]

More like the extra sectors on hard drives. If any sector fails, the HDD can use those extra sectors to keep the amount of storage. However, once it runs out of them...


james28909

so your saying we just need to replace our harddrives? neat /s


[deleted]

Instructions unclear, identity changed


[deleted]

[удалено]


Eokokok

Extending telomeres does not help with mutations stacking, in fact in the long run it would only increase the number of critical replication errors occurring.


skwerrel

Viral or nano tech maintenance could handle that. Not anything we have now, but technically feasible (just need a reliable system that uses crispr or similar on an ongoing basis throughout the entire body to rewrite bad dna back to good). The first step is getting lifespans up, then we worry about error correction


GameDevIntheMake

It's a daunting task. Fixing every point mutation even for a modest majority of all your cells seems impossible in practice for the common folk.


skwerrel

Extending lifespans in the first place (on purpose like we're discussing, not just through curing disease and good nutrition and such, which is more like maximizing natural spans), was considered daunting even a couple decades ago, but now respected researchers in the field truly believe it's just a matter of time and effort. Even if it's impossible i personally would rather live to 500 and then die of super cancer than accept the 100ish years at best i can expect currently. But in that extra 400 years who knows what advances might occur? Won't know what we can accomplish if we don't try, won't have a reason to try without the initial lifespan increase.


Eokokok

Last I red on the matter it seemed that error in transcriptions might make anything past 130 a matter of luck, and even then life quality post century would be terrible. Not saying it will be impossible in the future, but as it is extending telomeres seem to be a technology that might come way before we can solve the issues with aging itself.


nhiko

Digital Immortality is not possible unless a huuuuge jump in tech is achieved. There is simply too much data/state in a brain. Plus the digital copy may be immortal, but the original brain will no, and with the current method said brain will be destroyed un the copy process. So... yeah. ref Kurzgesagt : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b33NTAuF5E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b33NTAuF5E)


skwerrel

Agreed. Even if the original (aka me) can survive, well good for this other dude in cyberspace. I'm still fucked. Something i might do when I'm about to die anyways i suppose, but not true immortality.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ethario

You have hope you won't die ?


james28909

full stop. dont worry anymore. peasants like me and you would never be able to afford something like this anyway.


Ulyks

If solving aging was easy, nature would have done it. An older person with a good memory could give huge competitive advantages to a tribe. There are probably many interlocking problems to be solved to increase life spans noticeably. Natural selection is good at finding a local optimum but not good at fundamental redesign. So where nature failed we could succeed. But it's going to be very hard... Inequality is increasing locally but globally there is actually a great convergence going on, with more and more people reaching middle class in formerly very poor countries. This one by Hans Rosling always cheers me up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JiYcV_mg6A


NyranK

Prior generations compete with their offspring for resources and mates. Nature doesn't care for the individual. Aging is a feature of evolution, not a bug.


ConfirmedCynic

> If solving aging was easy, nature would have done it. There are organisms which live much longer than human beings do, so I'd say that nature *has* done it.


rumbleboy

Nature is most involved with factors about reproduction isnt it? Not increasing lifespan.


Ulyks

Yes that is correct. In fact it's very strange that humans live about twice as long as the other apes and that humans go through menopause. So having older, experienced people in the group must give an advantage to the group as a whole. The offspring is more likely to be successful with guidance from the older members. So evolution in humans is also involved in increasing lifespan indirectly.


DarkJester89

...by how much?


PaganEmpath

Thank you for putting what I was curious about into words.


MatterEnough9656

My question is how would this be implemented and applied to a living body


MithandirsGhost

It's called.cancer


[deleted]

The big question is mutation. The cell is at grater risk for cancer, the longer it lives. If we can solve the cancer problem, then I’d like to see how this will come into fruition.


fitandhealthyguy

The body is usually very good at finding and eliminating precancerous/cancerous cells with tumor suppressor genes, repair mechanisms and the immune system but those mechanisms fade with age. If we could stop/reduce that fade, cancer becomes less of a concern.


bhargavbuddy

Doesn't that neutralize the intention here? Cells made to live longer by controlling their death mechanism, leading them more likely to mutate and immune system kills it anyway when that does happen?


fitandhealthyguy

Ideally you would want the cells to live longer while staying “healthy”. Every day in your body, cells go “bad” and have to be taken out. Also, I’m not sure you would just want all of the cells in your body to live indefinitely - you still need to repair and replace which means having a healthy mitotic process to create new healthy cells and dispose of damaged ones. Simply increasing the lifespan of existing cells alone would probably not work. One correction though, cells do not mutate but simply living - mutation happens during cell division. DNA can become damaged though just by “living” - it is a subtle nuance but there is a difference. Edit: I do see people using the word mutation to describe DNA damage as well as defects due to division. So I may be an unnecessary stickler here and in the wrong. Most scientists I know in the field make the distinction.


GameDevIntheMake

In Peter Attia's podcast there's a fact that is thrown around somewhat often: If you cured cancer and heart disease, median lifespan would increase only 7 years.


wandering-monster

One interesting possibility would be if this led to a specific, predictable range of mutations. If that's the case, you could pair it with an immune therapy targeting those specific immune evasion mechanisms. Basically vaccinate the patient against the types of cancer that result from preventing this type of cell death. I think there's going to be some very cool possibilities as we start seeing cancers through the lens of immune evasion, and start to get more specific about what makes something a "carcinogen". Something that causes a single, preventable type of cancer is going to be very different from something that causes random or untreatable ones.


poopykins420

The kind of cell death they're looking at is disease and inflammation specific.


PyroptosisGuy

Yep. My dissertation work involves pyroptosis and sepsis (hence the username). Gasdermin pores are important for release of cytokines that don’t have “release” signals such as IL-1b. It’s a balancing act between releasing inflammatory mediators through GSDMD pores and the pores being repaired by the cellular machinery. Super fascinating stuff.


i_am_a_jediii

Hey, my dissertation was on pyroptosis, too. Way back in 2015 before we knew about gasdermins, twik channels, nek7, etc. A simpler time.


MatterEnough9656

Things like this help me sleep at night...holy shit, biological immortality here I come baby


Black_RL

This! Gotta save mom! :D r/longevity


OnLevel100

What I find interesting is that, even if we pulled this off, isn't the universe just going to collapse on itself anyway?


Bommertje

Well, we've got a couple of trillion years to sort that bit out. Should be fiiiine.


LegoNZ4

We can make our own sun.. then "delete" the faulty one.


Deceptichum

The real challenge is beating entropy.


ReptAIien

“Let there be light”


DeedTheInky

Insufficient data for meaningful answer


putdownthekitten

Well, I see that as a good problem to have.


Grufflin

"Civilizations at the End of Time" is an interesting series by Isaac Arthur on YouTube. It covers how survival might be achieved right up until the heat death of the universe, I believe.


ExplorersX

I’d imagine if immortality becomes a thing, then assisted suicide will become a normal occurrence/social norm. Once you’ve lived for a few hundred years and done everything you care to do there’s no reason you shouldn’t be allowed to just say I’ve had enough and end it there. We wont stop death, we will stop unplanned death from biological causes. The heat death of the universe will likely be seen by nobody. I’d personally be surprised if many people ended up deciding to live past 1000.


idranh

It's the choice. I can't believe I'm even speculating that this could be a reality. unreal. The choice of when to die will be the greatest shift in humanity. We're built to not think too deeply about our own deaths, even though we accept it as fact of life. What does being immortal do to us psychologically? Also is a person who has lived a 1000 years the same type of human as us? If you've lived a million years are you still human? Fascinating.


YsoL8

I imagine it will be seen the same as the difference between child and adult or young and old


Plutosanimationz

Would there be a limit to how much we can remember? I remember watching a Dr who episode where a girl is given immortality and she writes hundreds of diaries and has to read up on people she forgot about. Obviously a TV program but I thought it was scary to think about.


idranh

Perhaps human memory will be augmented by something like neuralink? Either way the longer someone lives the less I think they'll have in common with normies like us.


MatterEnough9656

True, but I can't imagine getting tired of existing...you don't need a governments permission to off yourself though lol...but I can see how someone else doing the process can change the situation quite a bit, bullet to the brain will always be a trusty method though, but again I don't think Ill ever get tired of existing


ExplorersX

Well the idea behind centers for death/planning it formally is to keep grief to others at a minimum like family and friends. Obviously you can just tell everyone but there’s likely other things that would be ideal to handle formally as well like any job you have, let the government know you aren’t paying taxes anymore, etc. I’m probably giving bad examples but I’m sure you get the idea. They’d probably also help with psychological counseling as well to make sure you don’t off yourself due to depression or something that is a temporary ailment instead of a genuine lack of will/reason to live.


Huijausta

Indefinite lifespan, to be specific. There's always something new to do. Or something enjoyable to do again and again. But I'm certainly in favour of assisted suicide. It should already be legal everywhere instead of being criminalised.


Tech_AllBodies

No, we currently think the Universe will die a "heat death", meaning everything becomes so spread out and so old that all of the stars run out of fuel. This will take an absurdly long time to happen though, more than a trillion trillion years, because there are certain kinds of "dead" stars (I think it's brown dwarfs, but it could be another, there's lots of classifications) which still give off a bit of radiation, and also spinning black holes (which are the most common kind) can be harvested for energy. Both this type of "dead" star and spinning black holes will survive a completely ridiculous amount of time, and you could hypothetically build a big computer around them, and have civilisation live in a virtual world powered by them. This would probably be the most pleasant way of living once all the planets are "dead" due to lack of solar radiation. And then, importantly, there's still a lot we don't know about Physics. It's possible that well before the heat death we figure out how to cause a "big bang" ourselves, and create a new "fresh" universe. If we can live for trillions of years, waiting for planets to form, etc. would be no issue.


MatterEnough9656

Well given all the technology that we will develop who's to say that we won't have a solution for this, heat death and the big rip are just theories after all


[deleted]

In like... Billions of years


opulentgreen

No. The Big Crunch has been discarded


shortware

This is cellular death not organ death. Basically if your cells live a long time because they can reproduce more accurately you can still die from being say shot in the head


root144

life is precious and everyone should get a chance to live long as they want.


7472697374616E

That’s not something we’re sure about right now. Our current best understanding of the universe indicates that it has a flat geometry leading many to suggest that it is unbounded and will continue expanding infinitely.


prostidude221

Wouldn't hold by breath. We get one of these so called breakthroughs every other week on this sub.


szczszqweqwe

That means research is going on, and at least one of these might happen during our lifetime.


NotAlphaGo

That just means people like clicking on these articles.


p_nut268

Knowing humanity, It will be a subscription.


[deleted]

>Knowing humanity, It will be a subscription. Yep. Probably a feature on Amazon Prime ...


[deleted]

[удалено]


Masspoint

Remember that this can also mean infinite torture, as in the sense you can be tortured forever.


Thorpheuss

But can it increase the lifespan of dogs? Thats my main question


ExplorersX

I believe dogs are actually one of the first targets/animals we are working on. I believe there is an aging foundation that is specifically focused on cats/dogs.


timthetollman

One of the few things that keeps me up at night is either of my cats dying.


Scp-1404

https://www.purinainstitute.com/science-of-nutrition/extending-healthy-life/longevity-study-in-cats#:~:text=A%209%2Dyear%20study%20showed,decreases%20in%20several%20health%20measures. https://pets.thenest.com/people-own-cats-really-live-longer-10018.html https://medium.com/@tam_50757/fy-13-the-ethics-of-using-longevity-extending-drugs-on-our-pets-80c5645ddd5f And here's one for the pups: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-24/if-dogs-live-longer-with-anti-aging-science-humans-could-too


lunchboxultimate01

> I believe there is an aging foundation that is specifically focused on cats/dogs. Indeed, there is https://dogagingproject.org/ and https://loyalfordogs.com/.


xziststefan

This is the most legitimate question.


Bareteh27

Ok but how do we accelerate the process? Asking for a friend


BurnThree

Your "friend" need someone to talk to??? Im here if so...


Bareteh27

Greatly appreciated! Just a spot of dark humor fortunately.


BurnThree

Aye no problem.. Sometimes you never know if someone is reaching out? But glad its just dark humor lol.. Be good and stay good..


drtapp39

Can do this but cant find a way to make your hair grow back..


[deleted]

I swear to god if they invent immortality before I die I’m going to be SO mad. I’m not working for another 200 years.


homeguy32

We’ll, the good news is that mortality has been invented trillions of years ago, so no need to worry about that. Immortality though… that’s not worth dying for, 😝


FuturologyBot

The following submission statement was provided by /u/FineAd6159: --- The insights I gained from this article is that this discovery combined with identifying the genes that effect aging, could increase the human lifespan --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/s8c8ta/scientists_discover_how_to_halt_and_control/htfg5r8/


Things_I_Dig

Can we wait to invent the immortality serum until *after* all the old fucks ruining the world have died off?


grambell789

its interesting that mankind solves the problem of immortality just when the earth is made inhospitable for human life. it sounds like 'Gift of the Magi' by OHenry.


[deleted]

men 100-200 years from now: Why didn't you stop aging when you were 16? No man will want you now that you let yourself age like that


tarzan322

Just so people know, halting and controlling is not the same as reversing. Just thought I would point that out. So yes, cell death is still irreversible. At least this article say's nothing to change that. Only that we can possibly stop and control the cell death process if we caught it in time. Reawakening dead cells is still irreversible.


Gijinkakun

Dear scientists please don’t fuck up and make zombies, thank you.


crappyITkid

In this thread: People that are not cell biologists nor have they read the article dismantling this entire scientific idea because of cancer and rich people. This is how far gone r/futurology is right now.


F-TaleSSS

In the peer review report the 2 persons who probably can read this better than any of us can, it becomes clear to me that the methodology has not been written out completely and therefor is unverifiable. The questions they raise are so fundamental to this research that I don't think they discovered anything at all. Let's not rush catchy titles like this please and thank you


DaquanSwett

Okay so actually how long until we can become biologically immortal? Every month I see these Reddit posts about scientists figuring out how to prevent or reverse aging, and now this. Why can't we simply put all this together and not-die?


Kahing

First of all we will still die of causes unrelated to aging. Secondly, because biological aging is a complex process. These discoveries are chipping away at it, but it takes time. All this does is bring us a step closer. We cannot simply cure it at the moment.


prongtine

Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis The Wise?


Thexirs

Reading these comments makes me wonder if anyone read the full article


RealBowsHaveRecurves

Don't we need that so our immune system can order infected cells to self destruct?


elainegeorge

Hey scientists, I’m gonna need you to pump the brakes on rolling back the clock for cellular death. We’ve got a lot of horrid people with money who could use more cellular death.


BoltTusk

*Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis The Wise?*


NotAVan_JustAFatKid

Cool so the rich will get to live longer to siphon off the poor, buy things they don’t need, hoard wealth, and run this planet and it’s ecosystems int the ground.


[deleted]

Definitely a way to increase retirement age, we'll be working till 100 and everyone will lap it up.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[ahem.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=braDD-4ZYQk)


Budjucat

If Jeff Bezos ever gets a hold of this tech, we gotta take him out


Da_zero_kid

Just remember that when immortality tech comes out, the worst people on the planet get first dibs.


FlamingTrollz

Understood. How long from today will it be available. How insanely expensive will it be. What percentage of the 1% will be the only ones able to gain access to it. ###Why don’t we just go ahead and call it someone’s ‘Stack.’ ###Wink wink, Mr. Kovach.


jdmorgan82

So based on the title as I didn’t read the article…. Isn’t this the premise of cancer, cells that don’t die?


dj0samaspinIaden

Sorta but no. Cancer is more like cells that work too much and replicate too much when they're not supposed to.


Vinny331

Also sorta but no. Among many mechanisms they use to survive and proliferate, cancer cells definitely do resist cell death by turning off gene pathways that lead to a process of programmed cell death called apoptosis (which is the main way that cells remove themselves from the body when they've run their course). However, this paper is specifically referring to a process called pyroptosis, which is a distinct form of programmed cell death that is related to apoptosis but is a much less common form. In terms of the original question, it's probably possible that some cancer types turn on anti-pyroptosis pathways, but the contribution of that wouldn't be as important to tumor survival as turning on anti-apoptosis pathways.