Million Dollars a Dose
by enorbet from LinuxQuestions.org on (#4WB2Z)
As if AI and CRISPR babies weren't enough to worry about regarding the fate of all of us, and quite possibly even likely, disparate, difference between rich and poor now the beginnings of actual advancement in prolonging life, at lest for the rich, enters the scene. Here's the beginning of a news feed I've just read...
Quote:
Now a new US Startup is marketing injections of telomeres for a staggering $1,000,000.00 a dose. It is entirely unproven and holds great risk, even the possibility of detrimental effects, but already they have paying customers. Whatever else, this will advance the cause since it will be the first attempt at such gene therapy on humans. Whatever the results, it will provide actual evidence to begin narrowing the field. Advances and possibly greater setbacks are sure to follow, but fundamentally it is known that on a biological level it is doubtful there is some hard limit on how long humans can live and not only that but how long one can live healthy and what would be seen as "younger" by most people from an earlier time. We have considerable DNA with a common ancestor, Yeast, which is essentially immortal so there is no inherent "sell by date" in the process of DNA. There literally may be NO Limit.
I mention "earlier time" because it should be obvious that cliches like "40 is the new 20" didn't exist until the late 20th Century. The boldness of that cliche should tell us a lot for a 20 year "improvement" to even be contemplated as not utterly a fiction. Imagine how it may be when that cliche changes to "60 or 80 is the new 20". That is one messy can of worms the subject has such broad consequences both individually and on the whole.
So I'm wondering how many here even hear or follow such "technological progress" and more importantly how you react.
Would you, if money was no object, try a dose of telomeres at $1,000,000.00 a pop, wait for the next or a later phase, or never even consider such a thing?... and your reasons are welcome.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by MIT Technology Review - Gene TherapyIt's said that nothing is certain except death and taxes. But doubt has been cast over the former since the 1970s, when scientists picked at the seams of one of the fundamental mysteries of biology: the molecular reasons we get old and die. The loose thread they pulled had to do with telomeres - molecular timepieces on the ends of chromosomes that shorten each time a cell divides, in effect giving it a fixed life span. Some tissues (such as the gut lining) renew almost constantly, and it was found that these have high levels of an enzyme called telomerase, which works to rebuild and extend the telomeres so cells can keep dividing. That was enough to win Elizabeth Blackburn, Carol Greider, and Jack Szostak a Nobel Prize in 2009. The obvious question, then, was whether telomerase could protect any cell from aging-and maybe extend the life of entire organisms, too. |
I mention "earlier time" because it should be obvious that cliches like "40 is the new 20" didn't exist until the late 20th Century. The boldness of that cliche should tell us a lot for a 20 year "improvement" to even be contemplated as not utterly a fiction. Imagine how it may be when that cliche changes to "60 or 80 is the new 20". That is one messy can of worms the subject has such broad consequences both individually and on the whole.
So I'm wondering how many here even hear or follow such "technological progress" and more importantly how you react.
Would you, if money was no object, try a dose of telomeres at $1,000,000.00 a pop, wait for the next or a later phase, or never even consider such a thing?... and your reasons are welcome.