1134
Stanford scientists regrow lost cartilage and reverse arthritis in major breakthrough (www.sciencedaily.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
157 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 4 months ago (12 children)

No worries about that, there is no changing the maximum age seemingly, not unless you genetically engineered babies with tech we don't have yet.

Everyone is born with stem cells that carry so many copies of cells that are preprogrammed to die after a point to then be replaced by those stem cells. No drug can make more copies after the fact.

Then of course the dna gets denatured just by radiation and pollution and time.

Neither of these will or can be solved after someone is born. They can extend the average lifespan of a group, but they can't exceed the maximum, which has remained constant throughout human history even as the average has changed drastically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    All of those things seem to be related to information processing, not any inherent property of atoms.

    "Then of course the dna gets denatured just by radiation and pollution and time."

    Pretty sure "dna" isn't just present in one cell in the body.

    Also, how can two thirty year olds make a zero year old baby?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    Have you read anything about this before espousing your grand pronouncements here?

    Seriously, like, you are so far in left field here, I can't even respond.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    https://vadim.oversigma.com/MAS862/Project.html

    But lay on MacDuff, pour your great knowledge upon me. Tell me how a carbon atom knows it's in a thirty year old body or 95 year old?

    "Also, how can two thirty year olds make a zero year old baby?"

    Surely you can respond to this puzzler? Even if I'm in the left field of the Andromeda Galaxy?

    Explain away, professor!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    I thought the central problem was telemore degeneration, not anything to do with stem cells per se.

    Happy to be corrected if wrong; I never worked anywhere near this category in my very long ago now pharma/biotech phase.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    That is part of it, which is what I alluded to in the degeneration of the dna. The stem cell thing too though. Our bodies aren't programmed to live beyond a certain point. We learned about this in a Nature of Disease course at University.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)

    What's the maximum? About 120?

    Imagine having 100 or more healthy years. That seems like sci-fi, but may be possible one day still.

    It will also mean working until you're 100 before the national pension kicks in unfortunately lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Around 120 is maximum yes. I think some french woman might have gotten near 130 but I forget.

    Unless you believe the bible, in which case hundreds and hundreds of years. And woman was made from man's rib. Makes sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    National pension

    Ngl, you had me in the first half...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    They nearly had me in the first quarter, but now I no longer believe I'll ever see it. Not enough young people are born. My generation is enough to support the current old people, but there won't be enough people to support my generation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Are there enough people at the current system where the top 1% get 99% of the resources? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    But there will 100% be enough people to keep the basics going

    We are thousands of times more efficient than we were a couple hundred years ago.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    The top 1% don't get 99% of the resources, they get 99% of imaginary wealth. It can't be sold off en masse.

    Ergo, we don't have a magical extra 100x increase in actual goods and other physical resources per person coming if we just kill the 1%. Things could be distributed much more fairly for sure, but it's not as simple as "these few people own everything so if they're gone, everyone else is a millionaire".

    Anyway, much of the "basics" is going to be in person care work with an aging society. We haven't handed that off to AI yet, nor medicine, but once that's happened then yes we can actually handle social safety nets in an aging society. Right now the solution they're going for is a constant increase in retirement age to keep the tax revenue high enough to pay for retired people's needs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent