It is truly amazing to think that the newest generation of people might live in the age where the richest people in the world never die naturally.
And here am I thinking that I might be living in an age when I can be forced to become young again so that I can’t retire.
No. Why pay money to make the workforce young and immortal, when they can just replace you with cheaper and more easily manipulated workers in 20-30 years?
Because they’re seeing how that “replace you with cheaper and more easily manipulated worked in 20-30 years” is working now. They might try relying on breeding, but when that falls short (like when all the boomers suddenly start retiring), they’ll realize they can’t trust us to produce our replacements.
If they keep the workforce young and immortal, they can have unlimited workers. No one can demand more money because they can replace you with one of the hundreds of drones waiting in the wings. So we’ll all be kept young and desperate.
Edit: gesture typo.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
That reversibility makes a strong case for the fact that the main drivers of aging aren’t mutations to the DNA, but miscues in the epigenetic instructions that somehow go awry.
Once “aged” in this way, within a matter of weeks Sinclair saw that the mice began to show signs of older age—including grey fur, lower body weight despite unaltered diet, reduced activity, and increased frailty.
The researchers are attaching a biological switch that would allow them to turn the clock on and off by tying the activation of the reprogramming genes to an antibiotic, doxycycline.
Sinclair is currently lab-testing the system with human neurons, skin, and fibroblast cells, which contribute to connective tissue.
That could mean that a host of diseases—including chronic conditions such as heart disease and even neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer’s—could be treated in large part by reversing the aging process that leads to them.
Sinclair has rejuvenated the eye nerves multiple times, which raises the more existential question for bioethicists and society of considering what it would mean to continually rewind the clock on aging.
The original article contains 1,267 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 86%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
What a bullshit title.
Its not because A makes you older (or here, makes mice look older) that you are solving aging by removing A.
Eating, in the long run,makes us older.
If eating makes people older I am ancient
It’s the function of metabolism that makes us age, the process of living.
So yes, processing food is a key part what uses us and makes us ahe. That doesn’t mean people should stop eating, which seems to be a hard concept to grasp.
This is fascinating research. I’m middle aged now, and hope I gain the benefit of treatments like this!
You won’t be able to afford it.
Did you just assume my financial status?!
(you’re probably right)
Incredible!
We are literally in a Jetsons episode sometimes
